[H8crilA]

Luckily individual soldiers without heavy equipment (at least some artillery) are more or less useless in a proper military showdown. Has been the case at least since WW2.

ISIS was a good example, they were being quickly defeated by pretty much everyone involved in the Syrian conflict.

[langsoul-com]

I think you should look into the middle east a bit more. Taliban are still around and now control the place.

Individuals might not have heavy weapons to start. But with enough time, weapon destructivness reaches a parity.

[H8crilA]

Yes you can wage guerilla warfare for extended periods of time if the conditions are right - i.e. if you have local support of the population, and someone outside is getting you the guns to harass the official administration / occupants.

Now think about whether either of those conditions apply in a particular scenario, then remember you need both. Afghans obviously hated being invaded and helped "their guys", they also had Peshawar.

[seanw444]

Sounds like it applies here to me.

[jjk166]

ISIS overran large portions of multiple countries before major powers started a coordinated effort of local ground operations and precision airstrikes to defeat it, and even then it took years.

[strus]

Few ambushes and you have the heavy equipment. That's how many Ukrainian volunteer groups armed themselves - on russian forces.

[H8crilA]

The ambushed vehicles will run for max a few weeks without maintenance. Then there is ammo of which they use kilotons (thousands of tons), and you obviously can't really capture such a quantity of ammo. Though you can capture some ammo, sometimes.

The captured vehicles could often be serviced by either side. Also, some vehicles could be traded with foreign partners'. I bet you there are multiple T-90 and even more interesting vehicles in Yuma Proving Ground and other compounds, disassembled to the last screw.