Gun laws

[telge2]

Will it be somehow modelled in the game, how heavily armed the civilians are? I mean, obviously, the partizans made life hell for occupiers in the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, but it should be nothing compared to the difficulties when I invade 'Murica. I want to see those rednecks on the map, yelling at my armies: "You want my land? Come and take it, you son of a bitch!".

 

[Skjold89]

I think you might be over estimating the amount of gun ownership in the United States during the 1930s.

 

[Joppos]

So this would in any case probably just best be modeled with a small percentage modifier to partisan efficiency however that'll work?

 

[telge2]

I think you might be over estimating the amount of gun ownership in the United States during the 1930s.

Yeah, probably Did they have statistics about guns per capita back then? I didn't find anything about it. But still even if they weren't as heavily armed, as nowadays, they had to be very well armed compared to e. g. the Soviet Union citizens.

 

[Adonnus]

I remember a Japanese general advising against an invasion of the continental United States, with the words "If we invaded there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

 

[Alliegorical]

I remember a Japanese general advising against an invasion of the continental United States, with the words "If we invaded there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

If they had attempted to invade, there'd be a gun behind every wave and every cloud east of Hawaii.

Anyway, that quote is bogus. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Gun ownership in a country would have to be completely cultural. A nation that just suddenly allows its civilians to own firearms won't experience anything that would have not already happened due to civilians not being trained enough for combat situations.

Since gun ownership is a cultural aspect of the United States, it would mean lots of people deemed unfit for military service would know the basics on holding, firing, and cleaning a firearm. Most Americans would just need a short tutorial from a fellow American on how to properly wield a gun, meaning minimal weapons training required. However, realistically, a lot of Americans would be joining defense militias, so really, gun ownership still didn't affect anything directly. The best way to simulate it in America's case would be to greatly increase milita training efficiency the moment continental American soil is occupied.

 

[FOARP]

Gun ownership would have had little effect on partisan activity. Thinking otherwise is basically believing the self-serving mythologising of US gun-nuts.

Don't believe me? Well, let's take a look at which countries in the world, other than the US, have relatively lax gun laws at the time and which ended up being occupied: Belgium, Czechoslovakia - neither of them countries known to have high levels of partisan activity during the war.

The basic fact is that gun-ownership, by itself, does not really make partisan warfare any easier. You do not fight a war against organised troops backed by tanks and artillery with hunting rifles, shot-guns, and revolvers - at least not a war that's going to last very long. The occupiers will simply beat down resistance, demand that anyone who has a gun hand it in, and hang anyone who doesn't do so. Unless the occupiers truly don't even bother appealing to the local population (like, e.g., the Germans in Poland) there are always enough collaborators to gather intelligence about partisan movements - people who turn in their neighbours simply to settle old scores and so-forth. The US would be no different.

Partisan warfare is fought with organisation, sabotage, spying, assassination, bombings, IEDs. The biggest advantage a country can have is mountains, forest, and jungle - places where partisans can establish base-areas. Here the US actually has an advantage.

 

[Antiboyscout]

WOLVERINES!!!

 

[Secret Master]

Gun laws? Nah. Who cares?

Pre-positioned and pre-planned partisan activity? That's a whole other ballgame.

Take a look at Switzerland's plans for defending against a German invasion. They included making sure everyone had arms and ammo (state issued, not privately owned), but also specific instructions to ignore any surrender notices, locations to rally and fight, and a command structure designed to continue even after the capital was taken.

Switzerland was a partisan nightmare waiting to happen, but it wasn't just because of firearms.

 

[blue_yonder]

Switzerland was a partisan nightmare waiting to happen, but it wasn't just because of firearms.

I'm glad you mention the Swiss in this thread - I was going to, but couldn't be bothered. Ever since I invaded Japan in 3 and found nobody home, I've wished there was a 'national fervour' modifier, a partisan-enthusiasm scale on which conquest of the Vatican is nil and going into Switzerland is 10. The trouble is, it would be a jingoistic can of worms, with zealots from every god-forsaken corner of the earth arguing about their score.

 

[Secret Master]

The trouble is, it would be a jingoistic can of worms, with zealots from every god-forsaken corner of the earth arguing about their score.

I agree, but with the added caveat that any discussion of partisan movements gets us closer to things we can't model or discuss. The jingoistic can of worms can get super ugly when we consider that angle.

The advantage that HOI3 had was that the occupier had significant influence over the strength of partisan movements. No need to be zealous about your homeland; if the occupier went total exploitation, it was open season on logistics no matter what country was occupied.

The added benefit of HOI3 was that URs could be run by GiE and their allies. So, instead of playing the nationalism card, you, as the player, could play it hardcore if you wanted or just ignore it. Feel like seeing the French Resistance do awesome? Play France and run URs or play the US and massively invest in URs. Ditto for Poland. And when it comes to the Soviets and eastern Europe, there's nothing like backing Yugoslav partisans in a mass uprising while you push through Hungary. Sure, the partisans are going to get wiped out, but the German army is going to be out of position to stop the Red Army, resulting in you coming in to "save the day."

We'll see how the Devs model it this time around. I'm hoping for more options for partisans of different ideological stripes. Then we can get some People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front kind of action.

I never liked those splitters anyway.

 

[Daelyn75]

Wait, wait, wait. I remember this conversation about 8 years back, and someone was bringing up the fact that "partisan" activity should be greater in certain areas. Well it was picked apart by a bunch of people stating that this isn't true since such and such went on in the Netherlands or France and that you cannot make America have the highest rate since guns were all over those nations back then.

No, no, no. That thread made me quite angry. Yeah, partisan activity happened all over conquered territory in Europe, but at least base it upon something, and not the "it's the same everywhere political correctness nonsense." Base it upon gun ownership, base it upon covert ops that the allies perform, base it upon something, and not the need to feel good and say it was the same everywhere this time.

I'll be watching how this goes.

 

[Evan05]

Have fun with your hunting rifle against soldiers from a foreign nation that are armed with military grade weaponry, tanks, ships, military training, and possible war time combat experience.

 

[Daelyn75]

Have fun with your hunting rifle against soldiers from a foreign nation that are armed with military grade weaponry, tanks, ships, military training, and possible war time combat experience.

Partisans don't fight in the open, they ambush, sabotage, and demoralize. Their primary aim is not to engage large forces. It's all about hit and run against targets that they have an advantage over.

 

[Evan05]

Partisans don't fight in the open, they ambush, sabotage, and demoralize. Their primary aim is not to engage large forces. It's all about hit and run against targets that they have an advantage over.

Have fun with all the military experience and training the average civilian would have.

And regardless, having actual military weapons would be more efficient at combating the enemy than hunting rifles and pistols.

 

[Daelyn75]

Have fun with all the military experience and training the average civilian would have.

And regardless, having actual military weapons would be more efficient at combating the enemy than hunting rifles and pistols.

Again, that's not exactly how it worked either. When Yugoslavia was overrun in 1941, the Yugoslavian army was still mobilizing. Their mobilized armies were defeated, but much if not most of their soldiers didn't even take part in combat. When Yugoslavia surrendered, thousands of soldiers went into the countryside and acted as a major thorn in the side of Germany's occupying forces to the end of the war.

The same thing with Russia, not sure about France, but possibly too. One thing all three of the countries had in common was support from the allies including Soviets for their partisans. Civilians did augment these partisans, and were trained to become fighters. It wasn't just a bunch of people with shotguns and rifles who decided they wanted to kill Germans all on their own.

And that is just it, I think the major factor for partisan activity should be support from outside the occupied zones.

 

[Evan05]

Again, that's not exactly how it worked either. When Yugoslavia was overrun in 1941, the Yugoslavian army was still mobilizing. Their mobilized armies were defeated, but much if not most of their soldiers didn't even take part in combat. When Yugoslavia surrendered, thousands of soldiers went into the countryside and acted as a major thorn in the side of Germany's occupying forces to the end of the war.

The same thing with Russia, not sure about France, but possibly too. One thing all three of the countries had in common was support from the allies including Soviets for their partisans. Civilians did augment these partisans, and were trained to become fighters. It wasn't just a bunch of people with shotguns and rifles who decided they wanted to kill Germans all on their own.

And that is just it, I think the major factor for partisan activity should be support from outside the occupied zones.

Without central command, the armies that acted as thorns for the occupiers were just that, thorns. They surely damaged and slowed down the enemy, but that's it. Without military weaponry, professional training, and a centralized command structure, they won't make a significant difference.

 

[Daelyn75]

Without central command, the armies that acted as thorns for the occupiers were just that, thorns. They surely damaged and slowed down the enemy, but that's it. Without military weaponry, professional training, and a centralized command structure, they won't make a significant difference.

I'm not sure why you'd say that. They certainly did help to slow down supplies reaching the front in Russia, and they also helped significantly in France up to d-day. Their role wasn't to take back land and destroy the occupiers from within, but to help the war from within by tying down occupying forces, and to sabotage enemy supplies, or forces reaching the front.

The way you talk about it, they shouldn't be modeled at all. I disagree with that.

 

[krieger11b]

Have fun with your hunting rifle against soldiers from a foreign nation that are armed with military grade weaponry, tanks, ships, military training, and possible war time combat experience.

Well the rifles would be the same equivalent, a K98 compared to a typical bolt or lever action an American would own, an Stg44 would be different though. There were also lots of National Guard Armories with weapons and trained troops, though generally not the same level as active military, though there would be some in the units with experience, quite a few veterans.

Enough likely to push back anything the Germans would ever hope to get across the Atlantic, which realistically wouldn't be anything more than commando units.

I am not that familiar with the Soviet Partisans and where they got their guns and importantly, explosives and mines from. Some where trapped Army units, but the rest? Did the soviets have strategically placed warehouses that the citizens had access to after they were invaded. I don't see an oppressive, brutal, and genocidal regime like Stalin's having citizens with guns and explosives in peace time. I think explosives and mines were more effective than guns, in particular attacking the already badly overburdened supply system they had.