Author Topic: Stand Alone or Group up (Read 2231 times)

burntmuch · « **on:** August 12, 2009, 04:54:30 AM »

SHTF or EOTWAWKI . Everyone has their own Idea about which rifle. now what do you think, try to go it alone or try to group up 3 or 4 guys with guns isbetter than 1 guy with one gun. I have 2 8 y/o girls & a 2 y/o boy. &a wife. I dont see the kids being able to help defend the home, though I am working on their shooting. Ive talked with my brother about this. Becuase of factors with our houses its been decided to hole up at my house. He brings with him guns, ammo , & the skill & knowledge needed. He Also brings a wife & 2 kids ,One is 18 y/o boy. More mouths to feed, but more workers. This issue is gonna be different for everyone. These threads have really got me thinking. Im working on a windmill in the works, Ive got ammo covered , 357 max & 22lr & 22mag. I know not the best choices ,but its what I have. Ive got water covered. Food & defence. re the biggies.

Lurker · « **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2009, 10:11:50 AM »

If you're all forted up in one place, it is easier to take all of you out at one time.

You need a back door, and a post strike plan. With childen, that will be hard...

Bill

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2009, 10:21:54 AM »

strength is in numbers ( on both sides ) . With a group it would be easier to have someone awake 24-7 . More to feed but more to gather also. More people mean more skills that can be used . At some point intel will be needed and its hard to be in more than one place at a time . How would one defend a farm or house ? A team would have a better chance . And if you know someone depends on you it will make it easier to weather the rough spots .

teamnelson · « **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2009, 11:08:58 AM »

Give Alas Babylon a read ... its fiction, keep that in mind, written when the nuclear threat was perceived to be real. But it sort of covers some of the issues of forting up/grouping together, but they work it out.

You have to do what works best for you, and an 8 yo on a rifle through a window is enough for most things probably. Seen alot of 8yos carrying AKs, and they can do what needs doing if they have to. I favor grouping up just for the emotional/spiritual/mental/psychological reasons ... w/o that I've seen folks go into a type of walking shock to where they lose interest in survival.

Yankee1 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2009, 02:57:58 PM »

Which ever you choose I would not like to be holed up in one place.
opposition can bring in whatever it takes to destroy you. I would prefer hit and run techniques. By the time they are hit you are leaving.
They find it difficult to direct fire if they are not sure where you are.
You cause casualties and leave. They have to run for cover and then probably try to flank you but gone by that time. Ambush and run.
Its a proven tactic. Set up ambushes, suck them in, Hit them hard and leave. We are talking perhaps a minute of fighting and leaving.
If they are fired on they have to take cover because they have taken casualties. Thats about the time you leave. This is repeated over and over. They can only guess where you are. Any other way and they will direct fire on you. Now imagine everyone fighting this way.
Yankee1

pab1 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 12, 2009, 07:40:26 PM »

The book Patriots by James Wesley Rawles covers both aspects that Yankee1 brought up. It also covers some of the advantages/disadvantages of solo vs group survival. I agree that a group could have many advantages over an individual, but members that can't handle the mental/emotional strain and stress could cause rifts between members and possibly be the downfall of the group. It might be easy to get along with each other on a weekend excercise or when planning for SHTF scenarios, but when thrown together for weeks or months on end personalities and egos may clash. A small core group (more that likely immediate family) who are already around each other in stressful day to day situations and work well together would have the best chance for long term survival.

don heath · « **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2009, 08:08:56 PM »

Read any book on the Rhodesian war. From that experience two adults appropriately armed stood off 99% of farm attacks. The real survival 'stories' emerged when the communists bought RPG 7's or a motar to the attack and got lucky with the first suprise hit. Our neighbors 9 year old son got busy with an singleshot .22 after his parents were both badly wounded by the first bomb of the attack which hit their bedroom. Kid got three and mores the point, provided such a distraction that the gook comander and his RPD gunner made the fatal mistake of turning to engage the kid and not watching the house- the mother, though badly wounded shot them both in the back- and the attack crumpled. For other interesting accounts which highlight the ability of a single family to hold off vastly superior forces read ' God in Zimbabwe'.

Two families are always better than one. Also when moving, you are very vulnerable. You cannot easily be 'ambushed' at home! Early in our bush war, many farmers/ miners made the mistake of heading off for help after a failed attack- only to die in an ambush on the road. Policy soon deleloped into - wait till dawn and the relief from the Army/police. As the farmsteads became better prepared, the gook attacks reduced- they concentrated on attacking people when they were outside the perimiter of the house.

don heath · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2009, 08:14:17 PM »

Pab1. The trouble with roaming on your own with a family is you lack speed, and lack supplies when on foot - or you are in a vehicle and tied to the trail. Both considerably easier targets for sundry lowlife than a stout house with a clear field of fire and preferably a decent security fense.

teamnelson · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2009, 08:46:50 PM »

If I had land now, I'd be doing a forcepro assessment and improvements I.e. Unobtrusive range markers, cleared views, and channeling. I'd make sure that they were on foot as far out as I could get. Make it such a hassle that the average person would move on, so only the persistant would be my concern and I'd prepare as best as possible.

That is a separate model to guerilla engagement on superior numbers. They aren't competing options.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:06:50 AM »

I think a small pack could be very effective, to large and you have a herd, herds are targets. A house is not very good cover from attack but can be made into cover. sand bags when stacked properly will stop almost anything, cleared land with pitfalls and barricades will create lanes of fire and open ground the thugs will have to cover, Gun pits outside the house allow more cover and wider firing lanes,This will be easier to construct and man if you have a group, also foraging in a group with someone provideing cover makes more sense to me. Also a bug out plan needs to be in place in case it looks like you'll be overran.

BTW I think a Greybeard pennant of some sort would be handy, That way you could fly it over your refuge and identify yourselves to other GB members and have a way of possibly finding friends while you are roaming around. If I could find some of you guys if SHTF I'd feel a little more confident. Don Heath your just a little to far away or I would look you up for sure.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:28:04 AM »

Although many will forge alliances after the baloon goes up some due to loss at the time etc. it would be better to have a network worked out in advance . The group could be establishe in advance . Maybe even spending a week long vacation togather to see how they mesh togather . If you can't get along at the beach for a week do you believe you can under the pressure of bad times .
people in outer areas would bond togather as they always have . The biggest problem is good folks running from cities being confused with the trash. So form relations before hand in several differen directions , maybe a route .
Houses are easy to attack and maybe easier to defend from out side

burntmuch · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2009, 09:06:44 AM »

Some good points. Now how many off us can turn their home into a fortress. I cant. Maybe some sandbags under some windows. The front of my house is brick half way up. that will help. What grouping up will do is when youve got 6-8 or 10 poss bad guys aproaching the house. A couple shots from a couple different windows will let them know you have at least a couple shooters. May be enough to deter some

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2009, 09:18:32 AM »

why let them get to the house ? meet um at the gate

pab1 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2009, 07:52:06 PM »

Quote from: don heath on August 12, 2009, 08:14:17 PM

Pab1. The trouble with roaming on your own with a family is you lack speed, and lack supplies when on foot - or you are in a vehicle and tied to the trail. Both considerably easier targets for sundry lowlife than a stout house with a clear field of fire and preferably a decent security fense.

If for whatever reason you are forced to abandon your home, you will still face this situation, whether in a family or a large group. A larger group of people can carry more supplies, but they also require more supplies. You will still have children, elderly, injured, etc... that would slow the group down. I agree that staying put would be best, but it may not always be an option. The point I was trying to make in my post is the possiblity of a group being its own worst enemy. Power struggles, dissagreements over leadership and decisions may cause an internal collapse. The better you know those around you and the more time you spend together could help prevent these issues or bring them to light before they become a serious threat.

don heath · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2009, 08:06:49 PM »

Ah yes- America where even rural houses are wood. Since 1891 our building regulations have specified nothing less than a 9" (double thickness) brick wall is legal for outer walls and 4.5" for inner walls.

Still- and example of shooting at unseen targets. A gang of communists raided the labour compound on the mine near us. All the farmers etc gathered to help and a breif fire fight took place- Gooks scattered and ran. Two were pinned down in a mud hut. Enter 6 police reserve complete with one MAG (240) machinegun. They cleared the villagers away from said hut containing the gooks and proceededd to shoot the hut up. Standard African village hut- 8-10' diamiter. Two tiny windows and flimsy wooden door. Thatch roof and walls of wood and mud about 4" thick. After 1000 rounds had been pumped into the house one gook sprinted out- and a farmer shot him with his 9,3. Gook left behind kept firing short burst back with an RPD. Police closed in to set fire to the thatch and gook obviously realised this and tried to toss grenade out of window- but had the wrong primer (common with russian grenades) and grenade detonated as the handle came off killing him.

Point of story- it is very very hard to hit an unseen target even when you know approximately where they are! On another occasion we set up a 'firepower' demo to impress my game scouts. "40 and Browning .303 machine guns on tripods and a 55 gal drum at 100m as the target. Initiated demo with a claymore mine and then fired 200rounds at where we thought the drum was (it was hidden by dust from the mine blast) - we hit the drum with one richochet. Not a good demo!

BBF · « **Reply #15 on:** August 14, 2009, 07:22:39 AM »

... another occasion we set up a 'firepower' demo to impress my game scouts. "40 and Browning .303 machine guns on tripods and a 55 gal drum at 100m as the target. Initiated demo with a claymore mine and then fired 200rounds at where we thought the drum was (it was hidden by dust from the mine blast) - we hit the drum with one richochet. Not a good demo!
[/quote]

Yep, but you did make one hell of a lot of noise

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2009, 08:39:01 AM »

The ones who live will be the ones who react best . groups will form and seperate as need arises . Those who know when to gather and split will make it maybe those who don't won't

Yankee1 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2009, 12:32:21 PM »

Hello All
I was in the 2nd Armored Cav. a recon outfit and this is the tactic that was taught to and used by us. It depends on a high degree of mobility. We had jeeps and armored personal carriers. We did not have to have roads. We were taught to use Browning light .30 caliber
machine guns with a rifle sling over the barrel jacket and one over the handle (Two slings) with the belt over one shoulder and fire into our flanks when leaving to prevent from being flanked while running back to our vehicles which were out of sight. One hour later we could be 50 miles away eating. It was hit and run tactics. We also used M24 and M41 light tanks. Our armored personel carriers were M75's. Our jeeps had light .30 caliber brownings on a pedestal mount.
If they decide to follow that would be a very bad tactic for them as you could have a tank waiting. I believe the same tactic could be used by ordinary people. Different equipment same tactic.
Yankee1

WD45 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 15, 2009, 04:54:27 AM »

Yankee 1,
Sounds like an epsode of rat patrol to me

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #19 on:** August 15, 2009, 05:49:55 AM »

Boy, I haven't seen that show for at least a couple days.

If things get as bad as we are talking I won't be attacking anyone, I am going up in the Kentucky hills east of here and making myself hard to find. The Appilachian mountains have protected and fed alot of people in past years, I hope it'll do the same for me if I need it.

Yankee1 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 15, 2009, 08:22:43 AM »

Hi WD45
That is exactly the type of outfit Cav.Recon is. Highly mobile hit and run tactics. Patton set up the type of tactics he wanted his men to use. The Tv series was about the Rat Patrol type tactics used by Cav. Recon.
Yankee 1

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2009, 04:59:42 AM »

They didn't have old, women and childern along . But a group of young men might pull it off if they can get browning machine guns , jeeps with mounts , APC and a light tank or two . Along with fuel, ammo ,water and food .

Yankee1 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2009, 11:09:47 AM »

Hi Shootall
Or what about motorcycles or ATV's or jeeps?
For flank guards use 00buck and pump guns. Use rifles for the assault.
I don't think I would have women and children involved in attacks.
Food and ammo would be needed for survival anyway.
Like I said diffferent equipment same tactics.
yankee1

teamnelson · « **Reply #23 on:** August 17, 2009, 02:18:22 PM »

TWAWKI includes foreign aid, UN troops, and eventual restoration of key services and supplies, in a matter of weeks or months. But for EOTWAWKI, you should be planning that every drop of fuel, water, oil, and every gram of gunpowder, metal, and chow are precious and not replaceable/renewable. You could burn up a decades worth of resources in just a few hours playing Rat Patrol, and get your mechanic/armorer dead.

You're also not anticipating the second and third order effects of an EOTWAWKI scenario, such as plague/viral epidemics spawned in part by the potentially millions of dead bodies lying around, or industrial meltdown like when critical machinery and equipment (national power grid, fuel stations) are left unattended. Then were playing Stop, Drop and Roll.

Who are you going to attack, and why? The ethics of post-catastrophe societies the world over are simple: attackers bad, all else good. Live and let live.

Unless were playing Red Dawn, then this isn't a survival discussion.

Yankee1 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 17, 2009, 05:41:26 PM »

Hello Team Nelson
My thinking is that my house is not defendable. If I were to try defending it they would know where I'm at and could bring as much fire power as needed to destroy it and me. Not a good plan for me.
However if Americans had someone trying to destroy them I'm thinking offensive. No I'm not looking for someone to kill. I am also going to make it difficult for people trying to kill me.
As far as the scenareo your guess is as good as mine. With all thats happening today much is possible. Survival is one thing. Fighting and surviving is quite another. Surviving is much easier if nobody is trying to kill you. If it becomes known that we are under attack I will fight.
Yankee1

Chappers · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2009, 02:20:32 AM »

A small group would be better than going it alone, it has worked before (just north of us when crap goes down they hid up in the foothills of the mountains and came back down after) but the downside with that is our humanity... taken family with too, some mouths will be useless but hay i would not hike it to safer ground without my love ones.

don heath · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2009, 07:44:04 PM »

Been reading 'when all hell breaks loose' by Cody- I recomend it highly. Don't agree with everything but it got me thinking...men alone don't löive very long. This was true of the American Mountain men or the British explorers and hunters of the African Interior. The boer hunters fared much better- but they moved as family groups with at least 4 men (over 15's usually counted as men). Cody points out (correctly) that man has always had to bunch up into 'tribes'- whether the 'extended family' tribe of the boer and bushman or some larger group, the division of labour and utilisation of food is far more efficient in a group. So is defence...or attack.

Where I live, a man could shoot or snare a big game animal every day for ever (yes, the herds are that big) provided hundreds of other folk didn't arrive also trying to hunt game for a living! Looking at the bushman density that wander around you need about 6000 acres of bush to sustain a small family group. If you can plant a cerial crop then that area needed falls dramatically to about 500 acres. A man alone cannot till the land and watch hi9s back. He cannot protect any resource- be it a spring or a hunting area let alone a crop.

Looking at the boers...4 men and accompanying women folk...enough for a man to always be on watch - not working...just watching, with enough others to get the chores done and hunt for food and profit. Somebody to care for the sick and gather fruit etc, to load the guns for the men if attacked... Four men can hold a stockade (if buit right) against increadilble numbers...

Conclusioon. Group up-you need a tribe.

torpedoman · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2009, 04:41:19 PM »

A quick look at history will show people survived in tribes.

Yankee1 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2009, 07:29:41 PM »

Hi All
I got to thinking groups might work Gunnery Sergeat Carlos Hathcock did have a spotter and managed 93 confirmed. I believe he had quite a few after him and managed to evade them.
As far as vehicles the Afghans used horses against soviet armored vehicles. Guess who won. The Soviets blew up their ammo dumps because they thought that without ammo they could not fight. They used cut up photographic film instead of cordite which they bought from Japan. The Afghan used to attack Russian convoys and when the convoy called for air support from Hind attack helicopters they would ride up into the mountains in a column and the chopper would zoom
down low to machinegun them and a group of men high above the chopper would shoot down into the top of the chopper knocking it down. This is what they had planned on. They would double back and strip the chopper of its guns and ammo and anything else of value.
The choppers had protection on the bottoms but not the tops.
Not bad for people hundreds of years behind times. Improvising seems
to work pretty well. Just a few thoughts.
Yankee1

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #29 on:** August 25, 2009, 01:46:44 AM »

yankee1 , that is true to a point . if you study deeper you will find the Russian military is run on following orders , if ordered to fly at a certian height then they did with out changing . This allowed the freedom fighters to know in advance where to set up . they would watch and plot their move based on Russian flight paths as they could not vary them as many others do .