Organized marauders, a serious thorn in the back of regular armies

[Mohoender]

I was just comparing the numbers for both Afghan wars and figured out that, despite having more troops, less rebel to fight, and much improved technologies (GPS, computer assisted devices, MRAP vehicles...) we have not done much better than the Soviets in the same amount of time.

Afghanistan 1979-1989

State Forces
Soviets (115,000)
Gov (55,000)
Total (170,000)

Rebel Forces
Mujahideens (200-250,000)

Casualties
Soviets
Killed
KIA 12,916
Others 1,556
Wounded 53,753
Missing 211

Government
Killed 18,000

Mujahideen
Killed Unknown

Afghanistan 2001-2011

State Forces
NATO (132,400)
Gov (270,000)
Total (402,400)

Rebel Forces
Various groups (136,000)

Casualties
NATO (-contractors)
Killed
KIA 2,413
Others
Wounded 16,000+
Missing

Government
Killed 8956

Rebels
38,000 killed/captured

Stating that, I don't intend to make any political statement and I don't intend to blame anyone (just wanted to make things clear). I simply imply that in favorable conditions marauders and rebel groups represent a formidable foe even for an organized army.

Therefore, do you have any thoughts on organized marauder groups.

[dragoon500ly]

Marauders/raiders would be a major obstacle for any military in the T2K world. The lack of aviation assests would hamper any counter-marauder actions. Lack of fuel would mean that the military would not be able to patrol or pursue them.

Mark 1 Eyeball, foot-bicycle-horse-mounted patrols to locate or defend against marauders, counter-attack units with limited fuel and/or vehicles so their ability to reinforce or pursue the marauders is reduced.

A bit more than a serious thorn...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

A bit more than a serious thorn...

Agreed. I think in places such as Poland where there's a signifcant number of troops of various nationalities and weapons are relatively common you'd find several multi national groups of marauders. I'd imagine such groups would establish their own fiefdoms over time, with an established hierarchy, and could easily prove to be more than a match for many military units.

That said, I think it's relevant to consider exactly how far the regular military might be prepared to go to deal with a marauder threat - it's unlikely that many rules of engagement will continue to exist by the year 2000. In the example above a well equipped marauder group based in a village who have had time to prepare defensive positions might be able to repulse conventional attacks by regular military forces, but how would they cope if the regular military resorted to indiscriminate mortaring or shelling, regardless of what casualties that might cause amongst the village's population? if they were desparate enough to deal with the marauders perhaps they would even consider using chemical weapons, and "collateral damage" be damned.

A marauder group that stays mobile will be better placed to defend against such an attack, but I would have thought that the larger a group grows the greater the likliehood it would try to find somewhere to establish a base of sorts?

[atiff]

Agreed with all the above. Also, the definition of 'marauder' (or not) is not black-and-white, especially somewhere like Poland. I see many groups of armed people raiding each other for supplies, etc. (think the neighboring town that tries to invade Jericho in the TV series of the same name). And then some bands that were 'marauders' may settle into a village or town and become more 'legitimate' after a winter of coexistence. One man's marauder is another man's patriot/hungry villager/wronged man seeking revenge/etc.

Andrew

[Legbreaker]

One man's marauder is another's militia/freedom fighter/police force/military unit/fill in the blank...
By 2000, it's very likely the definition is very blurred with pre-war elite units turning to occasional "marauding", and bands of criminals organising to form proper militia with a real desire to keep their small part of the world safe.

[Raellus]

I think that the term marauder should apply to units outside any established military chain of command. In other words, if a unit is no longer accepted orders from higher HQ, it is, technically, a marauder. Village militias might be the exception. In non-cantonment areas outside government control, local militias would be essential to avoid predation. I think it would be unfair to classify all such indpenedent militias as marauders.

I think another qualifier is that marauders are also groups, static or mobile, that resort to predatory behavior (raiding, toll-collecting, protection rackets, etc.) in order to sustain themselves.

I think that if a group meets both of these criteria (a. operating outside military chains of command AND b.) preys on others to meet its own needs), it should be classified as marauder.

I don't know if there would be an agreed upon classification like the one above in the year 2000. On one hand, it seems like some sort of widely accepted unwritten rule about who or what constituted a marauder would develop over time. On the other hand, things are so chaotic, and the lines between conventional military and bandit so blurred, the distinction may not be so clear. My hunch, though, is that folks in 2000 would have a pretty clear understanding of what a marauder was or was not.