How many "soldiers" from the top would be needed to defeat 100 soldiers from the bottom? Posted on May 5, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor How many "soldiers" from the top would be needed to defeat 100 soldiers from the bottom?
Depends on so many factors that any attempt at discussion about it would only be a pointless argument starter with no real solution
Assuming bottom has full access to military assets like artillery and air strikes and drones it’d be like battle of khasham where 50 us soldiers wiped out like 400 Wagner soldiers in a few minutes.
500-1000. Militias tend to take more casualties in most situations due to poor training and experience. Because militias tend to make retarded decisions that will cost their own lives.
>poor training and experience
Thankfully, many serious militias were started by combat veterans from the Middle East, and include police officers with firearms training. That is what made the government so scared, because they are trained to kill on a professional level.
Larpers are something cops talk up so they can arrest them not a serious threat. They're often unstable but rarely have the balls to act on their derangements.
How would you know they are actual combat veterans rather than just a POG that got his convoy ambushed? Even if they have combat experience, the others may not be the same. George Washington in the 1700s had to create a continental army because of how unreliable minutemen are. Because they come and go and are severely unorganized.
>George Washington in the 1700s had to create a continental army because of how unreliable minutemen are
Fuck, do people forget that. The founding fathers of the US didn't fight the British with plucky attitudes and some hand me down guns. They had to organize and create a professional standing force to be effective. I'm sick of this overly romantic "Overthrowing tyrants in a massive revolution" rhetoric as if the conditions for it don't take perfect timing, perfect circumstances and the right leadership to guide it
It doesn't take any of that. That stuff will all be there when it happens, just like it was for the founding fathers. All it takes is belief and action. Self-fulfilling prophecies and all that.
Washington didn't do shit. Von Steuben is the reason America ended up with a competent army.
Too open-ended question.
I don't think the people at the top should be dressed up in gear trying to look tough for a camera.
If it was 60 million people in normal clothes that own guns, which includes many normal Americans in the USA, that is a different scenario.
The government has 1-2 million armed personnel max. Of those, many are police or actual US military already in the militias, as well as the veterans who started the groups, and just armed citizens. That's the qualification, and that's what the government has to prepare for.
People forget, the military is not the government, and law enforcement has a right to militias as well. It is really the government that should be afraid of the military, as well as the armed citizenry. I don't have any gear like this myself, armor or masks or whatever, and I really only carry a rifle when I'm going out hunting. Just obeying the law.
if the bottom is 100 and the top is 1, you would need 2 or just more than 1
you would just need a drone with a grenade honestly and not this gung ho photo op stuff, and that goes for both in this weird fictional scenario that OP is jacking off to
Just 1. When a government sends in soldiers to shoot people protesting the government, they already lost.
Counter-insurgency is a complex thing and really a weak point for any conventional force, especially when it permeates your own ranks like in the Mexican Revolution
National guard here, I was dying for them fucking cockroaches to do something so I can put two in the chest and one in head
Context for this scenario you made up in your head?
You sound like a cock sucking weekend warrior gay. If you are a nasty girl at all and not some fucking glowmoron shill or disgusting chud.
Correct. Tons of Zog coping gays in here tho
The zogbot circle jerking is just atrocious here. Like someone else said if you're suddenly needing to fight an insurgency against the citizens of the United States you already fucking lost because even if you do win the country will never be whole again. It would just Balkanize or devolve into an open banana republic if anything.
Depends if it’s protesting or if it’s “protesting”. If it’s the former then absolutely agree
I'm sure it felt good to post that, but its not remotely true. Nobody outside of PrepHole gave a shit about Dorner being murdered, and the public at large were against January the 6th protesters and Bundy ranch. Media domination is absolute. I'm not saying people shouldn't resist the state, but to think that anybody will bat an eyelid at one guy being killed is so painfully naïve that you'll probably be unironically surprised when your mugshot is on the 6oclock news next to the phrase "white supremacist child rapist fires on hero cop, subject of ongoing manhunt".
My STALKER larp outfit looks less cringe than top photo and that is saying something.
>Thinly veiled guvmint bad thread
I didn't realize we needed threads dedicated to something we already know.
It's a dumb hypothetical. Police, FBI, ATF, and some other alphabet agency I'm probably forgetting would be fighting these dudes long before a unit like the 173rd is deployed. In the extremely unlikely case that happens, they'll be coming in with all kinds of shit like attack helicopters, drones, and artillery support, in which case bogaloofags are just going to getting vaporized by all kinds of heavy ordnance.
It depends, some larpers are actually good or can become good with minimal combat experience, like the ukrainian rambo guy
Some professional soldiers are fat cunts who can do nothing
Overall I'd say 3-4 to 1
Depends on support assets too. If the militia has a fuckload of technicals on the right terrain and pull some shenanigans, the regular infantry will run into more trouble if they're not properly supported. If they are properly supported, that militia's going to be eating 155 for breakfast.
It takes 1 (one) soldier from the top with the cheapest Chinese toy drone and a grenade to wipe out 5 infantrycucks from the bottom.
>muh chinkshit drones
Your reminder that the US was already integrating EW assets at the company level back in 2017 after they saw ISIS dropping grenades from drones in 2016. You're several years behind the times.
Just enough to set up the IED and one to detonate it.
That is how militias win. Fight your way and not the way of the enemy.
>Attempting GWOT tactics on a military who've just spent 2 decades fighting exactly that kind fo war
>Thinking that an organized force capable of attacking the feds is able to just vanish into the mountains like the Taliban...despite the fact that the government you're fighting has your birth certificate, SSN, bank account and phone number...
I wasn’t aware the insurgents had to declare their identity before they attacked?
>what are gwot sensitive site site exploitation battlefield forensics social graphing tactics
Zogbots will take the biometrics off your corpse and the fingerprints off your IED shrapnel and work backwards to find everyone you know and love, scoop them up for interviews, search every house, download all their financial records and computer data, and overlay it on surveillance records to map your guerilla cell's connects.
That military is gone and filled with trannies now retard.
They are gonna put a fucking bomb in your driveway you dumb moron. You live here retard.
Its not an issue of numbers, its a question of tactical utility. Top are less disciplined and poorly trained. They're more likely to run or panic.
Bottom can fulfill most roles reasonably well and are obviously preferrable, given the choice. However, they are still mortal men who can be killed just like anyone else.
Both could kill the other given the right circumstance, but there are circumstances in which the bottom will win, and more where its useful.
In short, its impossible to answer. Ask a better question.