I understand that the strategies Che advised for an effective guerilla war against a moderate army are very effective. Ammunition consumption, use of villagers, etc. That stuff is timeless and valuable to any aspiring Guerilla.
However, a few of the things that he suggested, seem REALLY outdated to me.
How much of a danger do Molotov Cocktails pose against modern battle tanks? Assuming the molotov is just made out of liquor or gasoline, what could the fire do against, say, an M1A1 Abrams? My guess is nothing. (other than making the thrower feel a little better.)
"Before arriving at a range for the “cocktail,” shotguns with a special charge can be employed (See picture 2-2). These arms, christened in our war with the name of “M-16,” consist of a 16-calibre sawed-off shotgun with a pair of legs added in such a way that with the butt of the gun they form a tripod. The weapon will thus be mounted at an angle of about 45 degrees; this can be varied by moving the legs back and forth. It is loaded with an open shell from which all the shot has been removed. A cylindrical stick extending from the muzzle of the gun is used as the projectile. A bottle of gasoline resting on a rubber base is placed on the end of the stick. This apparatus will fire the burning bottles a hundred meters or more with a fairly high degree of accuracy. This is an ideal weapon for enrichments when the enemy has many wooden or inflammable material constructions; also for firing against tanks in hilly country. "
I’m confused, is the purpose of this weapon to make the tankers get out, so that they can be shot with small arms? Would an Abrams’ occupants be in any danger from fire on the outer armer of the tank?
"A good defense against armored cars along roads is to dig sloping ditches in such a way that the tank enters them easily and afterwards cannot get out, as Picture 2-3 shows. These can easily be hidden from the enemy, especially at nighttime or when he has no infantry in advance of the tanks because of resistance by the guerrilla forces. "
I dunno, but it would seem really hard to dig a ditch that the Abrams couldn’t get out of. It has 1500 horsepower…as long as the treads are touching the ground, I’m sure it can get itself out.
That would depend on how high the walls of the trench are. Even the abrams has to get it’s center of gravity past the top of a wall to get over it.
Peace,
mangeorge
Yeah…but the Abrams can also reverse. The only trench I can think of that the Abrams could not get out of, would be one with near 90% walls, and pretty deep…if you’ve seen the pictures of the trench that are in the actual book, they definately look like something that wouldn’t stop and Abrams, but would be effective on the weaker and less agile 1960 tanks (when Guerilla warfare was published).
I’m thinking the Abrams is so agile, that it wouldn’t be worth the effort to dig a trench that could trap it.
Of course, you could design a trench with fundamentally unstable walls that would collapse when any significant weight was placed on them. Burying a tank in loose sand sounds like a fairly good method of significantly reducing its combat effectiveness.
Any tanker worth his salt would probably decline from going down the decline, but it might be worth a shot.
About tanks and fire: How good is the AC in those things? If you can get it hot enough, people inside a metal hull will cook up like lobsters in a pot. It might be impossible to get it hot enough with just gasoline, but that might be worth a thought.
I dunno, an army possesing the largest, heaviest, meanest tank in the world is probably a little more than a “moderate” army. I think even Che would have wanted to think twice before engaging an M1 with molotoves and sticks fired out shotguns.
OTOH, the palestinians have on several occasions destroyed Israeli Merkava tanks(arguably even better protected than M1s) with command detonated mines. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/02/17/News/News.43554.html
Also, Something every tank commander would know is that you would never want to plow through a building with a tank, like done in some war movies. Why? Basements.
Big tank + basement of just the right size == trouble. Especially since most tanks have very little armour on top.
And also the roof falling on the tank would obscure the vision ports and sighting equipment.
Tanks have been specifically designed to be less vulnerable to the tactics you mention, precisely because they were effective.
However, much of what he wrote about strategy and tactics are still quite useful, and are taught in our own War Colleges and advanced officer training. Tactics like “the minuet” (slightly updated) would still work against most infantry units, though we have done considerable work in trying to shore up our own tactics, after having faced the “sons of Guevara” in many conflicts around he world in the past half century.
I should note that our specialty units are well trained against such tactics, and standard infantry gets some training, too, but the underlying risks are almost impossible to completely overcome. A ‘standard’ infantry unit or unwary CO may still be lured in to variants of the minuet.
This is one reason why we have completely revamped our tactics in recent wars to emphasize masssive simulateous force across a front, and stand-off technology. A clever minuet against a small unit or a infantry column can still fill body bags, until we can make our soldiers (etc.) completely impervious to man-carried weapons. Rifle fire and Molotov cocktails may not be serious threats, but shoulder launched rockets still are, and massed grenades might be. Old tank traps may not work well, but new variants might.
Can I just say that Che Guevara was a world class son of a bitch, murderer of women and children, who made people poorer and helped Castro to run those “revolutionary Tribunals” were kids had to tell on their parents?
kawaii: That makes sense. The only time I’ve seen video of a tank busting through a house was at Waco, and I think that tank only went part way in the house, and butted through the walls with some sort of special attachment.
KP: Thanks for the info, that was exactly what I wanted to know. I had suspected that the general anti-infantry guerilla tactics were pretty timeless, but I doubted that a modern tank would be so vulnerable.
Did any of the Iraqis dig trenches to try to stop tanks, when the insurgents knew that they were comming for Baghdad? I would assume they’d have read Guerilla Warfare.
The original idea behind using a Molotov Cocktail against a tank was to rob the tank’s engine of air that is needed to operate. The tank would then stall and be at the mercy of the attackers.
Did any of the Iraqis dig trenches to try to stop tanks, when the insurgents knew that they were comming for Baghdad? I would assume they’d have read Guerilla Warfare.
I think I understand what you’re asking here. The Iraqi defenses during “Desert Storm I” did indeed include a long anti-tank trench.
I doubt it’d be easy at all to find a cite for if American tanks ever fell into anti-tank trenches during Desert Storm 1 or 2. I read that no American tanks were lost in Desert Storm 1 though.
Re: the OP: “I understand that the strategies Che advised for an effective guerilla war against a moderate army are very effective. Ammunition consumption, use of villagers, etc. That stuff is timeless and valuable to any aspiring Guerilla.”
Despite his contemporary left-wing chic, Che Guevara was a miserable failure as a guerrilla/guerrilla leader and was an almost total cipher during his exploits in South America.
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim this. Could you please explain? Also, his failure doesn’t neccessarily negate the value of ammunition consumption and the use of villagers as intelligence, etc. As KP said, they still study his tactics at war colleges.
I didn’t say that the trenches were effective, only that they existed. You don’t recall that the coalition tanks had to have a “bridge” of sand to cross the trenches?
During Desert Storm 1 I was very young, so I don’t remember anything about it. It’s only during the last few years that I have learned anything about the war through my own reading.
I used to spend hours and hours over at Che-Lives trying to convince young (average age over there seems to be about 15 or so) wanna be revolutionaries that the support they will get from rural farmers and such, based on living in Montana, will not be what they think.
Red Revolutionary: “Good farmer, I need a meal and a place to sleep. I am trying to fight the capitalists in Helena who seek to opprese you.”
Farmer: “Susan!! Get my rifle!!”
Well somebody helped Castro kick the benevolent team of Batista, US business, and the mob out of Cuba. Maybe if they had known about tank traps, huh?
The moderators are going to get annoyed if you make political comment in GQ.
What are these “War Colleges” of which people speak? Are we talking West Point, say? Other than the various military colleges (I think each branch has one), are there any others in the US?