Want this question answered?
War is much different when you know where your enemy is, and wars against insurgencies (E.G. Viet Cong, and later the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents) are not for conventional armies and tactics, especially when there are hundreds upon hundreds of trees, any one of which someone could be hiding in. So, to sum it up, fighting insurgents sucks.
They had much better weapons, war experience and tactics, and they brought diseases with them that the Natives had absolutely no immunity to.
No tactics
The Viet Cong were insurgents and terrorists in South Vietnam, who supported the North Vietnamese Army. While the North Vietnamese Army fought in direct combat from the north, the Viet Cong used guerilla warfare and insurgency tactics to interrupt operations in the south.
Fighting tactics of the Roman army, like the tactics of all armies, depended upon the battle conditions. Things such as the number of the enemy, the terrain and even the weather had to be considered. They had several battle formations and maneuvers, which were used in various circumstances. In a very broad sense you could say that the infantry used hand to hand combat as their main tactic with three lines of fighters and the cavalry used a type of herding/chasing tactics.
Composite
Composite
The insurgent coalition that may use different approaches at different times when applying tactics that take the best advantage of circumstances is the Marine Corps Counterinsurgency.
The U. S. Marine Corps Counterinsurgency is the type of insurgent approach or collation that may use different approaches at different times applying tactics that take the best advantage of circumstances.
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
composite
Composite
COMPOSITE
Composite