Guerilla Warfare


Active member
It is the best way to fight in jungle and even urban areas. If this skill is mastered ansoldier can become an army all by himself. This was used and first tried out during Nam. The tactic we used were not as good as the ones used as the veitcong. They had underground tunnels that were bobby-trapped in case any U.S. soldier teid to get in an find intel. The old techniques are the best ones in my opinion. People think there old and don't work. If we apply them our spec ps might be able to stay on a mission for the max of a month.
I thought Guerilla Warfare went as far back as the Revolutionary War?

For the "US", yes. But those tactics had been used long before the Rev War.

UW is unconventional warfare it's already part of SF's mission and has been for some time.
Guerrilla or partisan warfare is as old as war itself. As Sun Tzu said, for the weak to defeat the strong, it is necessary to await a change. As far as being "better" than conventional tactics, not true! They are simply an adaptation to conventional tactics which has the aim of weakening the morale, infrastructure, and political position of the enemy, until the partisans are strong enough to win in a conventional war. The main "strength" of a guerrilla is that they don't have to hold territory or supply lines. This is because they CAN'T. And you can't "win" a war without doing these things.

Gurilla when used as the only tactic, is a tactic for the weaker side of a non-symetric conflict. A gurrila army dose not want to win territory, it wants to change an existing situation. It wants to even things up by tireing and badgering the opponent, untill it is possible for the gurrilas to become a real army. When you are weak, this is a good way to fight. There is no real option for the stronger army to have a stand off with you.
When we were discussing the elitism of the SEALs and Marines, I went to the SEAL website and noticed that they kill 200 enemies for every 1 soldier they lose. THere is no way to do that without using guerilla warfare. Even then though I don't consider special operations guerilla warfare.
When we were discussing the elitism of the SEALs and Marines, I went to the SEAL website and noticed that they kill 200 enemies for every 1 soldier they lose. THere is no way to do that without using guerilla warfare. Even then though I don't consider special operations guerilla warfare.

There are plenty of ways to do that without UW tactics. DA missions often end with such kill ratios.

I am sorry for the way I have been acting lately. I was being stupid. Yoyu guys are making me mature. To guys I am only a kid. But in reality you gus are making me more mature. I joust want strict knowledge.(formerUSMC cadet) (Present usaf cadet) I just want to become smart so in the near future I could answer questions. Please forgive for taking up time and space. You are the only guys that understand me. It wont happen again. Stupidity will not come from me no more.
Special forces where born out of guriller warfare,in WW2 the SAS spent months out in the desert conducting hit and run raids on german positions (they did it again in the gulf war), and conducted anti gurriller warfare again in malaya when the SAS was reformed to fight communist gurrilers and since most special forces are based on the SAS, they probably have the ablility to fight and perform gurriller warfare alredy.
I can speak about the Viet Cong in Vietnam at least during the time I was in country and in my AO. I spent a year traipsing through the Central Highlands of that place in an Army Scout Platoon. FYI, our mission required us to be on recon patrol for the vast majority of the time. In other words, our mission was to observe and report on all the activities, movements, and resources of the enemy. I never once encountered any evidence of any VC units or activities. It is my considered opinion that by the time I was deployed to South Vietnam (1970), the Viet Cong, as commonly perceived, no longer existed as a viable fighting force. We saw plenty of North Vietnamese trying to give the impression that they were VC but after some investigation they were all found to be NVA (North Vietnamese Army) that had recently been sent south. So much for that guerrilla force.
Top, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the VC demonstrate my point very well. They were primarily concerned with keeping the Americans off balance, rather than winning decisive battles. Their strategy was as much political and psychological as it was military. And, (this is the point) ALL of this was a build up to the point where they could stage an actual knock down drag-out decisive battle. That's what the Tet Offensive was SUPPOSED to be. But wasn't, because it fell flat on it's face.
You're right except about the head to head battle. VC and NVA would go out of their way to avoid taking on the Americans in an open battle. Without exception, they were outgunned and over-matched and they were well aware of that. These simple facts of life left them with little alternative but to stage a guerrilla style war.
The Tet offensive took place before I got there but it was clearly an attempt to do what we had been doing to them all along. That was to give the impression that they could take any place at will. We would do that all the time by air assaulting onto a hilltop well within their AO and set up a fire base wherever and whenever we wanted to.
During Tet 1968, the VC and NVA didn't stand a chance of holding any of the cities they attacked. They sure as hell weren't even close to holding Saigon. Their concept was that the people of South Vietnam would join them against us. That went over like a lead balloon. They weren't even close to taking Saigon. 19 VC reached the American embassy grounds there but never even gained entry. But I remember the news media portraying it as virtual defeat of the Americans.
For background you should realize that through 1966 N. Vietnam suffered huge casualties and devastation of supplies through bombing in the north and fighting in the south. Just 10 days before Tet, the battle of Khe San took place. The same General (Giap) who had defeated the French at Diem Bien Phu (1957) also conceived Khe San. His purpose at Khe San (besides victory) was to distract the Americans from the cities of South Vietnam.
It was that very Tet offensive that inflicted such heavy casualties on the VC that they were not considered a viable fighting force after that.
The misreporting, along with Communist North Vietnamese agents in the United States, led to demonstrations in the streets by Americans in protest of the war. Gen. Giap later wrote in his book, that the news media reporting and the demonstrations in America surprised them. Instead of seeking a conditional surrender, they would now hold out because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of victory could be theirs.
Here's another bit of info for you. Bui Tin (the guy who received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam) had this to say when a Wall Street Journal reporter interviewed him. Tin said, "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Tin went on to say that Gen. Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.
So, to answer your question, no the VC's intent for Tet was victory and they got their collective butts handed to them. Their greatest weapon turned out to be the sensationalist American media not guerrilla warfare.
Sorry for the long winded post but I am not sure how much background information people who read this might have.
Hi DTop, Welcome to the forum.

A long but very interesting post.

DTop said:
Their greatest weapon turned out to be the sensationalist American media not guerrilla warfare.

Sadly enough, this seems to be the case in most modern conflicts/wars..
(not only American media...)