Guerilla war gives weaker army a chance to win against a stronger enemy

>guerilla war gives weaker army a chance to win against a stronger enemy
Why real armies doesn't use it? If guerilla tactics are stronger than conventional wouldn't using it by strong army be overpowered?

Because guerrilla warfare isn't good for taking territory, and it doesn't allow you to use stuff like tanks and air support that tend to be pretty useful.

Are you aware of the all the situations that Gorilla tactics were used in?

Because guerilla armies can't take or hold land in a controlling fashion. They can only coerce; raise the cost of occupying a given region to a high point, hopefully past the point that your opponent is willing to endure. And they almost always take enormously more losses than the regular forces; which is why it only works when you can balance out superior commitment against superior material forces.

You cant hold territory with guerilla tactics. To use them the enemy must already have penetrated into your territory and theres obvious reasons why you dont want that to happen if you can avoid it.

I read somewhare that you can't use it to hold territory, you also can't use tanks or aircraft.

>If guerilla tactics are stronger than conventional
They aren't. They are used to enable a weaker force to survive against a stronger force.

Only useful in a jungle, in a place like the desert or temperate forest you are gonna get the shit bombed out of you.

That's not true, mountains are good too

You can't into guerrilla warfare without a population that supports you.

This is why Che Guevara got killed. Nobody in Bolivia supported him, so he was tracked down and killed by the army almost immediately.

Guerrilla warfare is something that you only do when the population of the country you're fighting in supports you, but you have less men and materiel than the enemy.

Splintered firepower has its disadvantages.

They don't need to willingly support you, the entire original strategy of the Malayan commies was to intimidate the population into co-operation and it worked, the only reason it stopped working is because the British starting giving the squatters land

Intimidation only works to a point.

As soon as the British established that they could protect people, the people began to turn against the communists.

This is the central pillar of Counterinsurgency Doctrine, that you win the war by protecting people.

Meanwhile in Indochina and Algeria, the French just brutalized everyone, and eventually turned the insurgencies into massive people's armies that pushed them out of the country.

Most armies play it after defeat

It's for stopping invasion. You need to know the layout of the land and already be established in the are to use it.
Does the man who makes these also make porn?

Everybody in this thread.

Real armies do use it under certain circumstances.

>Why real armies doesn't use it? If guerilla tactics are stronger than conventional wouldn't using it by strong army be overpowered?
Because they don't like dying.

But do they use them to take territory you brainlet?

> If guerilla tactics are stronger than conventional
1) Wrong. You don't win offensive wars in a guerrilla war.

Hell, you don't win defensive wars in a guerilla war automatically. All it ultimately is is a delaying strategy hoping that something down the long would come to your favor like a foreign ally, your enemy getting politically tired of it and so on.
>Why real armies doesn't use it?
2) They do. Offensive guerilla warfare by conventional armies are handled by intelligence agencies and special forces. Literally some of their jobs is to conduct guerilla wars either as serving as advisors to a bunch of local hired guns or doing it themselves.

What are you, didn't read the history of the cold war or something?

This, guerilla warfare is used by conventional armies all the time. What do you think special forces do?

Guerilla would just slow the big army down. And in a sense detachments of the big army do engage in guerilla warfare, with the assistance of elements from the big army.

But a big army doesn't want to use guerilla warfare, what it truly wants is TOTAL WAR. But most peoples' hearts are too big and soft to stomach the sights and sounds of war, so it will always be opposed. And the guerillas will keep on thinking they can win.

if you try to replace conventional warfare with guerilla tactics on big scale: you lose majority of your population.

It's really no different from Hitler in a bunker ordering all civilian Germans to attack in last suicidal attack.

That's why the Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq insurgencies were crushed overnight?

They carry out raids, sabotage and assassinations, operating in small numbers to do disproportionate damage. He didn't say they were guerillas. They use guerilla warfare, friendo.

>not hiding tanks in forests and airfields in fields
What a pussy

a) that wasn't the question, and b) yes.

>Why real armies doesn't use it?
They do. What the fuck do you think Vietnam was?

Most deserts are rugged and mountainous as fuck, not just piles of sand like in the Sahara.
t. live in a desert

>vietcong
>real army

I don't know if it has been mentioned but the states have used this by training whatever opposition they are supporting
we do have soldiers who know how to cause terror with minimum resources or help a coup

Yes it was, it was basically NVA in disguise.

The NVA certainly were.

Urban is the best actually.