Best WW2 weapons for counterinsurgency

Like it says on the tin.

Which WW2 weapons (tanks, rifles, aircraft, etc) of the major combatants was the most suitable for a counterinsurgency operation? If you had to assemble an order of battle for a counterinsurgency, drawing weapons from all WW2 participants, which weapons of which combatants would you choose, and why?
 
For counterinsurgency, you're not going to really need heavy armor or artillery. I'd recommend the type of weapons used by the Alamo Scouts, the 5307th Composite Unit (provisional) a.k.a. Merrill's Marauders or Orde Wingate's Chindits. These groups basically laid the groundwork for modern day special forces.
 
I think most WW2 weapons are pretty suitable for COIN as compared to modern day stuff the WW2 weapons are a lot simpler and cheaper to operate. Modern frontline equipment like the F-15 or the Challenger 2 can do the job but they're designed to do so much more and that comes at the price of weight and complexity.

There's also the issue of when this insurgency takes place? If it's in the modern day then the insurgents could have some very capable anti-tank and MANPADS at their disposal.

I've not got time to go into this in detail but a few thoughts off the top of my head:

Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Corsair, Tempest II are all capable ground attack planes that are available before 1945.

Sherman, reliable, pretty well armoured unless you're facing Tigers or Panthers and in the 75mm or 105mm versions really useful for infantry support.
 
WW2 + counterinsurgency = Not going to work.

Wining a counterinsurgency assumes that the enemy doesn't just let lose the JU87s on your civilians (and then round up the survivors into camps).

All you need to win a counter insurgency is for the major power to have sufficient motivation to pay the cost of wining.

2014 weapons will work perfectly well (better than WW2 ones) if they are used with the same determination/inhumanity of the SS v Warsaw Uprising.

JSB
 
WW2 + counterinsurgency = Not going to work.

Wining a counterinsurgency assumes that the enemy doesn't just let lose the JU87s on your civilians (and then round up the survivors into camps).

All you need to win a counter insurgency is for the major power to have sufficient motivation to pay the cost of wining.

2014 weapons will work perfectly well (better than WW2 ones) if they are used with the same determination/inhumanity of the SS v Warsaw Uprising.

JSB

I'm not talking about winning, just what weapons would be best, in an early-to-mid 1940s context, to counter an insurgency.
 

U.S David

Banned
The Best Weapons?

Gas and Chemical Weapons. Every area there is an attack, kill a whole village.

Or even Atomic Bombs, we will bomb a city intill you surrender all fighting. Like what the Empire planned to do with the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance.
 
The Best Weapons?

Gas and Chemical Weapons. Every area there is an attack, kill a whole village.

Or even Atomic Bombs, we will bomb a city intill you surrender all fighting. Like what the Empire planned to do with the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance.

I think my post implied conventional weapons....
 
You need to decide where the COIN work is. What they would have in the jungles in Asia/SWPacific area is different than the desert in North Africa, and the mountains of Yugoslavia is different than the steppes of Russia.

Example is in the desert you would want something like the LRDG/SAS force as opposed to something on the steppes where you would want a mixed half track mounted infantry with armoured cars/light tanks with maybe something like a howitzer based gun support vehicle combined with fire bases that would have lots of arty on call or close airsupport.
 
Nazi death camps?

COIN is not won with weapons, it's won either through divide and conquer political strategy or genocide.
 
Exactly, people here are too obsessed with weapons and technology rather than strategy and logistics, which actually win wars. Yuri Zhukov and Alexander Statiev have written a lot of great material on Soviet counterinsurgency methods in WW2, including some stuff which can be found online.
 
Last edited:
best tool

Out of ww2 the best weapon would be radio's and constant tracking also isolating the insurgency from the general public. regards
 
People don't seen to get that to win you have only two strategies:

- Give them more than what the other side is going to
- Kill enough of them

You don't need any specific weapon to do so, just to give what they want or kill them all. Focussing on a specific weapon is like changing the color of a car while not noticing that tthe engined has been removed and that seats are burning.

Perfect example: Ireland. XVIIth centyry: kill them all. XXth century: allow them to become independant.

USA failed stategy 1 in Vietnam. To be fair all countries failed with the first strategy as long as people wanted to become independent.
France successed in strategy 2 at Madagascar just after WW2. Strategy: you bonb a village and you tell other ones that you're going to do the same thing the day after if they go on.
UK did a good job in Malaysia with strategy 1 (as basically they allowed them to become independent)
 
Well trained Infantry with Good mobility (Horse/Vehicle) allied with Local troops/police on side who are trusted by the population

Instigate Hearts and Minds ops - ie find out what the villagers (or potential support base for the need and supply it.

It does not matter what weapon they are equipped with so long as the people see them as the good guys (or at the very least the lesser of 2 evils compared to the insurgents)

If this is impossible then more extremes are required - either give up and go home or remove the supporting popualtion (Today I'd 100% support the former and 100% oppose the latter - however things were different 50 -150 yeatrs ago.

This worked for the Americans in the Phillipines and later the British where they removed the villagers that were supporting the Boars in South Africa during the Second Boer War by placing them in "concentration camps" - (tragically due to criminal mis-management many of the Villagers and Natives in those camps died of diseases and malnutrition - up to 50% of them Children).

If your nation and Army is prepared to do that then go for it and history be damned.

The individual weapons do not matter so long as your lads are better armed than the insurgents.
 
Best weapons are probably a working knowledge of the society in question and subordinates with the political and policing skills to finesse the problem.
 
Probably some air observation/reconnaissance types would be useful - Hs126, Lysander, FW189 type stuff.

What did the Nazis use in the USSR? I remember the film Come And See, where a FW189 initiates the whole ghastly business by taking a photo of a kid with a toy gun, IIRC.
 

Redhand

Banned
Probably some air observation/reconnaissance types would be useful - Hs126, Lysander, FW189 type stuff.

What did the Nazis use in the USSR? I remember the film Come And See, where a FW189 initiates the whole ghastly business by taking a photo of a kid with a toy gun, IIRC.

That movie was one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen, still a great movie though. The whole dead family causing someone to going crazy thing and then a burning building massacre complete with laughing SS guys was some heavy shit.

In terms of recon planes, they'd be good up to a point as you need terrain that is relatively clear. Honestly, a combination of terror, genocide, and population displacement is the best way to do counterinsurgency but not necessarily the nicest. You need the political will and patience to succeed and a highly motivated infantry force for this.
 

Mookie

Banned
IWM-E-3776-SdKfz-222-19410624.jpg


Low cost, low gas mileage, protection against almost every weapon available to insurgents in 1940
 
In terms of recon planes, they'd be good up to a point as you need terrain that is relatively clear. Honestly, a combination of terror, genocide, and population displacement is the best way to do counterinsurgency but not necessarily the nicest. You need the political will and patience to succeed and a highly motivated infantry force for this.

Some works I've read on Soviet counterinsurgency in WW2 would disagree with that. A lack of restraint can be just as bad as too much restraint, as it leads to abuses which drive the population into the hands of the rebels. Soviet strategy from 1944-47 was definitely effective at reducing the UPA's overall strength. But it came at the cost of heavy losses in the RKKA, NKVD, and the local Party and the alienation of the local population. The moderated startegy adopted from 1947 onwards proved to be more effective and economical. It involved a carefully targeted repression campaign aimed only at insurgent and their families, propaganda to discredit the UPA among the rural populace by showcasing atrocities, and the intensification of collectivization efforts. The collectivization campaign was particularly important because it forced the UPA to carry out larger and more indiscriminate reprisals against those who joined the kolkhozy. This in turn alienated the population and caused them to withhold supplies from insurgents, deny them shelter, and form Soviet-organized "destruction battalions" to defend local communities and hunt down UPA fighters.

Mass violence and terror isn't the end all be all in authoritarian counterinsurgency. A balanced approach is the more cost effective way to weaken insurgents, destroying their base of support without alienating the majority of the population.
 

Redhand

Banned
Some works I've read on Soviet counterinsurgency in WW2 would disagree with that. A lack of restraint can be just as bad as too much restraint, as it leads to abuses which drive the population into the hands of the rebels. Soviet strategy from 1944-47 was definitely effective at reducing the UPA's overall strength. But it came at the cost of heavy losses in the RKKA, NKVD, and the local Party and the alienation of the local population. The moderated startegy adopted from 1947 onwards proved to be more effective and economical. It involved a carefully targeted repression campaign aimed only at insurgent and their families, propaganda to discredit the UPA among the rural populace by showcasing atrocities, and the intensification of collectivization efforts. The collectivization campaign was particularly important because it forced the UPA to carry out larger and more indiscriminate reprisals against those who joined the kolkhozy. This in turn alienated the population and caused them to withhold supplies from insurgents, deny them shelter, and form Soviet-organized "destruction battalions" to defend local communities and hunt down UPA fighters.

Mass violence and terror isn't the end all be all in authoritarian counterinsurgency. A balanced approach is the more cost effective way to weaken insurgents, destroying their base of support without alienating the majority of the population.

The UPA probably was a lot less powerful as time wore on due to being hunted by almost the entirety of Eastern Europe . A successful insurgncy needs popular support which they had right up until the end but it also needs supplies to come from somewhere and it needs safe havens not just in the forests. The West didnt lift a finger to help them and they simply wore down over time. All counterinsurgency tactics revolve around adapting conventional strengths to fight an unconventional enemy, and yes, the Soviets did this, much like the US successfully did in the Phillipines and the Romans did against the Iberians, but if you put the UPA in East Germany or Czechoslovakia you might see a different story as foreign help and possibly less hostile territory might be enough to make a difference.
 
Top