If you are fighting an enemy superior in numbers and equipment, they have the tanks the artillery guns and helicopters fighting as a military formation is a sure fire way to get killed and very quickly.
You will in the end target collaborators and target enemy civilians as well as other soft targets which will force the enemy to retaliate with harsher methods against local civilians to force them further into your camp.
One of my roles during the 80s was stay behind OP to let the Soviets roll by and then raise hell in the enemies rear.
Also there was then a real threat of a Soviet Invasion of Britain.
Tony
Tony:
I've got a little military and law enforcement experience behind me as well. About 25 years all summed up. You are correct in your statements, but I think I was a little vague in my response.
The only way to fight a superior enemy ( more planes, guns, tanks, aircraft, etc) is to engage in hit and run guerilla tactics, and make sure you have the advantage during infiltration as well as exfiltration. You need logistics and support, and you have to communicate. Collaborators threaten these lifelines and are a threat. Civilians may die as an unintended consequence, but are not specifically targeted for killing as part of the strategy or campaign tactics.
Collaborators are also called spies. History proves they get killed pretty quickly when found.
Tactics have to change and evolve, or else you are dead in a month when they figure out your patterns.
Let me clarify my point, or put a finer edge on it, because I probably wasnt very clear.
I was specifically addressing terrorists who:
1) Dont wear a uniform
2) Dont belong to the national military, reserves, national guard, or organized militia
3) have no means of identification ( dog tags, etc)
4) Intentionally target civilians and avoid contact with military forces
5)use murder, rape and terrorism to inflict fear on the population
6) Have a religious motivation and desire to conquer the world
7) Have a religious mandate to murder unbelievers
8) Dont care about the rule of law
Resistance fighters have nearly always fought better equipped forces of superior number but they have found effective disruptive tactics that don't involve attacking civilian targets. Better knowledge of local terrain and conditions has often been to their advantage.
I suppose it depends a lot on what the final objective of the resistance is. It could be total liberation from an occupying force or it could be "buying time" or assisting some external liberating force.
In the case of Iraqi "resistance" I suspect the final objective is more to impose an alternative form of occupation than it is to liberate
I'm not even sure who the "enemy civilians" would be in the scenario of a soviet invasion of Britain. Do you mean Soviet civilian workers in Britain?
Your bit about forcing the enemy to retaliate against local civilians sounds like classic terrorist strategy.
You might feel this is justified by the circumstances but I would argue you have already lost the battle.