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.

[rcaf_777]

I think marauder would differ depending on where you are, PC in Poland would find marauders being a mix bag or crimnals and rouge military units, but in state side you find organization like gangs or "Other groups" being your main problem

As your taking them on that you depend on what the local Commander had on hand to deal with them, I could some Commanders could employing static defenses while having recon teams out attemping to locate thier main camp, having found said camp the commander then sends in heavy armed troops and equipment to attack them, the main goal being to capture or kill as many as then can

Being a thorn in the side would depend how well the marauders are equiped and who they attack, a small group of three or four person stealing food to live might be a problem for a Mayor or local Milita but the MILGOV or CIVGOV commander might brush it off, he would more likely to take action should a unknow group attack his troops or try and steal miltary supplies

[dragoon500ly]

When I was doing research for a Dien Bien Phu campaign, I came across a book called the Last Valley, decent overview of the DBP battle, but also included useful information on the fighting in the years that took place prior to DBU. All of the horrors of classic guerilla warfare in mountainous jungles. And the French trying to maintain control with worn-out WWII aircraft, a handful of helicopters and a mostly road-bound military.

In the early years of the 1st Viet War, The French tried to withdraw their northern highland garrisions, out of some 6,000 troops, the French lost over 5,000...

Now picture the effects of a marauder band numbering say 1-200 men......pity the troops that would have to go out and hunt them down, talk about a death of a thousand cuts!

[Raellus]

Scale is important too.

Most marauder bands are likely to be small, squad-to-company sized units who survive through simple banditry. They would be a continuous nuisance to military units and a bane to undefended civilians. This would be your most likely encounter in a standard T2K game.

You might, however, encounter a much larger, battalion-to-regimental sized unit that moves through the countryside raiding and pilaging. This group would likely be a former military unit that mutinied or deserted whole-sale but continues to operate as a coherent formation. These groups would be much more rare and considerably more dangerous. In many ways, they would resemble the Free Companies of the Hundred Years War.

[HorseSoldier]

Marauders are probably a lot like cults -- above a certain success level we start to call them religions, even if their beliefs remain kooky. Above a certain success level and size level, marauders will morph into (probably oppressive) local governments, though their predatory tactics may not change at all and the distinction may be wasted on their victims.

Probably the further away from organized military formations, the larger your potential marauder groups get. Close in to controlled areas, anything too threatening will get smashed, meaning you'll mostly see small units that dodge patrols and aren't enough of a problem to justify a dedicated campaign to wipe them out. Out in the middle of nowhere, there won't be that culling process for the most successful, so that's probably where you see large marauder bands turning into feudal aristocracy or whatever, or fighting it out with independent towns and settlements in bloody little knife fights for the crumbs of civilization.

[Mohoender]

Nice ideas I have seen developped here and that reminds of something. Do any of you knows anything about the "Ecorcheur" (Scorchers)?

These were large bands of former mercenaries (who had served the King of France during the 14th-15th century). During the periods of peace, these mercenaries would gather in large bands (often as much as 1000 men) and conduct pillage throughout the country. Much like the maraudeurs of T2K.

Then you could imagine large marauding bands acting as these ecorcheurs. traveling through the Twilight world, attacking and ravaging communities or simply forcing them to pay ransom. A favored method of the middle-ages Ecorcheurs was to capture some people from a given city. Then, they would tie them to poles and scorche them alive (making sure that their scream would be heard from the entire city). As a result, the people living in cities were given the choice: either they would pay ransom or suffer the same fate.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Nice ideas I have seen developped here and that reminds of something. Do any of you knows anything about the "Ecorcheur" (Scorchers)?

These were large bands of former mercenaries (who had served the King of France during the 14th-15th century). During the periods of peace, these mercenaries would gather in large bands (often as much as 1000 men) and conduct pillage throughout the country. Much like the maraudeurs of T2K.

Then you could imagine large marauding bands acting as these ecorcheurs. traveling through the Twilight world, attacking and ravaging communities or simply forcing them to pay ransom. A favored method of the middle-ages Ecorcheurs was to capture some people from a given city. Then, they would tie them to poles and scorche them alive (making sure that their scream would be heard from the entire city). As a result, the people living in cities were given the choice: either they would pay ransom or suffer the same fate.

Lovely....just the sort of thing that confirms that I never want to live in a city!

On a more serious note, something useful to throw against Krakow or that certain "Man Who Would Be King", just up the river.

[Raellus]

Right, Mo- the Chevauchées- raids launched by "Free Companies" or "Scorchers" during the 14th & 15th centuries. They plagued France especially, but raids were launched into Swiss territory, northern Italy, Spain, the Low Countries and part of the Germany & Austria. That's one of the manifestations of large-scale marauding I think would make a comeback in the Twilight World.

[Panther Al]

So here is a question then:

Lets say a group of players had a relatively decent chargen process, leaving then in possession of characters of somewhat above average possession of talents, abilities, and most importantly stuff.

Instead of doing what most would do: run rampant with more guns and ammo that some units three times their size, they decide (The campaign being based in the region framed by the borders of Italy and Austria - the eastern part to boot) decide they rather be hero's in a different sense.

They looked around, did recon, and built a decently equipped small firebase near a choke point for any traffic trying to avoid the well known routes north and south. Instead of being the dictorial types, they offered services: Fuel and Protection if the travellers wanted it, and no comebacks if they didn't. Even did a good bit of looking for the troublemakers and putting them down in the area. Over time, and a lot of it was accomplished before the GM really twigged onto the endgame, they had a decently sized town, well fortified, with good farms and limited (mainly small stuff like fuel and ammo) manufacture astride one of the safer routes, which in turn led to more traffic, which in turn led to more ability to grow and equip, which... well, you get the point. In the end, the head PC (Yours truly) pretty much admitted that the goal all along was to form his own duchy the old fashioned way: By getting growth and power by providing honest protection.

Now, since we all was no longer accepting orders from higher, and we was setting up our own fiefdom, were we marauders, or something else?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Now, since we all was no longer accepting orders from higher, and we was setting up our own fiefdom, were we marauders, or something else?

That's a tough question to answer with a yes or a no.

Were the townspeople happy to have you? Did they have any kind of a choice?

IF the answer is yes, then I would say most free thinking types would not call you marauders. The larger unit from which you deserted might, as might any organized OPFOR units in the AO. If your group didn't have the blessing of the local civies then I think most everyone would consider you marauders.

Perhaps, once most of Europe had transformed to a sort of feudal system then your PC's situation would be the norm and the term marauder would apply only to roving bandits.

[Targan]

And then you have units that higher command do not consider to be maurauders but actually are. One of the Polish Free Legions comes to mind. The details are a bit hazy for me but in 2000 they had a DIA or CIA liaison and were receiving intermittent NATO resupply but had in fact gone rogue.

[HorseSoldier]

Agreed that one man's marauder might be another man's "military unit requisitioning and foraging." It all pretty much probably boils down to shades of gray and the perception of the individual assessing what's going on.

[Legbreaker]

An armed and hostile group is an armed and hostile group no matter what uniform they may or may not be wearing. By 2000 almost everyone not friendly will be dealt with in the same manner.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Now, since we all was no longer accepting orders from higher, and we was setting up our own fiefdom, were we marauders, or something else?

To a degree I think it depends on whether or not you had been given any orders to obey from a higher headquarters.

If you're following the classic Escape from Kalisz scenario you could argue that the radio broadcast stating "Good luck, you're on your own" effectively gives you a fair amount of carte blanche to do as you please (going from memory I think that broadcast was made by the Commanding General of the 5th Division?).

if, on the other hand, you're in a campaign where you were specifically ordered to do something and instead of doing that acting on your own accord you set yourself up as the Grand Duke of the Tirol then I'd say you're a deserter (at best).

Now whether being a deserter neccessarily equates to being a marauder is another matter altogether. In my opinion in the scenario you've outlined you're not acting as marauders. Likewise two men deserting from a unit in the US to try to make their way back to their homes and families aren't automatically going to become marauders. The actions that one carries out may have a bearing on one's fate if one is recaptured by the forces that one has deserted from. In your example rather than being shot out of hand (or hanged to save a bullet) you might be sent to a punishment detachment that gets all the suicide missions, whereas those caught raping, pillaging, etc would likely be straight off to the gallows.

Ultimately, as many have said it's all in the eye of the beholder...

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Now, since we all was no longer accepting orders from higher, and we was setting up our own fiefdom, were we marauders, or something else?

I think the word we are now looking for is "warlord," perhaps to be shortened to "lord." Assuming the historians of the future like you.

IMO, once a marauder band gets really big, and settles down, and is too big and fortified to be rousted out, it becomes a local or regional force to be reckoned with, perhaps a warlord. Then, the local military command can either spend a lot of supplies and blood to attack them, or try to deal with them as diplomatically as possible. Or send in a special team of agents (you know, PCs) to assassinate the leadership.

The royal fellow in Raciborz and the guys in Krakow come to mind. They're both behind Soviet lines, but since they aren't causing any direct problems, the Soviets are following "live & let live."

[Mohoender]

Adm Lee is probably right when you know that most of the nobility in the world (if not all) descend from marauders, tribal leaders...

[95th Rifleman]

A small, highly motivated and well armed group of military veterans is perhaps the deadliest fore known to man.

When you look at the American war of independence, the Spanish guirellas in the peninsula during napolean's invasion and the Viet Cong, it's clear that such a threat can and will topple entire armies if under-estimated.

Today's marauder band could become tomorrow's bandit nation.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I think the word we are now looking for is "warlord," perhaps to be shortened to "lord."

That reminds me of something.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words --- 'mank' and 'ind'. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

[simonmark6]

Well, in the UK in some regions Mank means filthy and unpaletable:

There's no way I'm going to that club again it's well manky.

That toilet is full of mank.

And ind is short for independent.

So mankind must mean self-determining filth...

Hm...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Well, in the UK in some regions Mank means filthy and unpaletable:

There's no way I'm going to that club again it's well manky.

That toilet is full of mank.

And ind is short for independent.

So mankind must mean self-determining filth...

Hm...

Really? That is interesting.

BTW, that was one of Tom Handey's quotes. Usually they are just nonsensical dry humor, but I guess this one has some truth to it.

You should be an English teacher Mark



Edit - added smiley to show that I know that Mark actually is an English teacher.

[Abbott Shaull]

As the supply lines dry up from the rear, there would be very little difference in marauders/raiders/allies. As the original v.1 state that at first Allies refrained from raiding allied units in 1998 and 1999 but by 2000 it would be plausible. I think this is where the Warsaw Pact would split. As units who haven't received much from their quartermaster units would look at who was closest to raid and which would be most like to succeed. Considering you would be expecting an allied unit to conduct a raid your lines. It would help explain why units were refusing orders at times too.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As the supply lines dry up from the rear, there would be very little difference in marauders/raiders/allies. As the original v.1 state that at first Allies refrained from raiding allied units in 1998 and 1999 but by 2000 it would be plausible. I think this is where the Warsaw Pact would split. As units who haven't received much from their quartermaster units would look at who was closest to raid and which would be most like to succeed. Considering you would be expecting an allied unit to conduct a raid your lines. It would help explain why units were refusing orders at times too.

When you are running low on food and meds you won't care too much if the guys in the supply convoy are speaking German or Russian when you shoot them.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As the supply lines dry up from the rear, there would be very little difference in marauders/raiders/allies. As the original v.1 state that at first Allies refrained from raiding allied units in 1998 and 1999 but by 2000 it would be plausible. I think this is where the Warsaw Pact would split. As units who haven't received much from their quartermaster units would look at who was closest to raid and which would be most like to succeed. Considering you would be expecting an allied unit to conduct a raid your lines. It would help explain why units were refusing orders at times too.

An interesting point. At what point does pilfering supplies from a neighboring allied unit become armed robbery? At what point does foraging become raiding? It's a fine line that would surely blur over time. When excessive/deadly force is used, that line is crossed.

[Sanjuro]

Without aviation units, or sufficient fuel to mount a pursuit, perhaps an effective defence for an area against marauders is to copy Alfred the Great's defence of Wessex against the Vikings:
Starting from a defended core, each outlying township is fortified in turn (Alfred called them burhs) to the extent that each can defend themselves in the short term; reinforcements can be called from the neighbouring burhs while the defenders keep the marauders busy. This sort of static defence would be almost useless against a modern army, but against lightly armed marauders (who would probably be unwilling to take serious losses) it might work.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Without aviation units, or sufficient fuel to mount a pursuit, perhaps an effective defence for an area against marauders is to copy Alfred the Great's defence of Wessex against the Vikings:
Starting from a defended core, each outlying township is fortified in turn (Alfred called them burhs) to the extent that each can defend themselves in the short term; reinforcements can be called from the neighbouring burhs while the defenders keep the marauders busy. This sort of static defence would be almost useless against a modern army, but against lightly armed marauders (who would probably be unwilling to take serious losses) it might work.

To be honest, by the time folks are using this kind of system, organised, modern armies will cease to exist.

Nobody would be willing to take excessive casualties so it would work against not just marauders but enemy forces aswell.