Originally Posted by 17&27
I wonder what Homeboy would do if say, on the initial assault of the preppers compound, a couple of his buddies were wounded and recovered by the preppers.
I would imagine that listening to your buddies scream while being skinned alive and disected slowly over 3 or 4 days could be pretty demoralizing. Preppers dogs and pigs have to eat too.
If met with a superior force you may have to make them believe that you are more savage, cold blooded and sociopathic than they could ever hope to be. They have to believe the risk is not worth the reward.
While thats a fine plan and all on paper, its the execution of it that fails.
going to torture someone? I mean, yeah we're on the internet, everyone is tough. But even with my multiple combat tours, and 10+ years in the .mil, while I can honestly say the concept of killing is not something I'm foreign to. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to torture someone. Unless they've pushed me far beyond my breaking point (ala law abiding citizen)
Even if you think you're bad enough to torture someone. I think when the time comes down to it, and that hot blood is on your hands, you might choose otherwise.
Secondly, think of your repercussions. (speaking hypothetically here) If you catch one or two of my raiders, saw we wounded a few of yours, and were pushed back, and then I hear you're torturing my guys, what do you think thats going to do to your outcome? Do you really think they're going to turn around and just leave you?
Do you have any idea how easy it would be to post a few guys, and send the rest of the group elsewhere and just keep you penned up till you either run out of food/water/supplies, or we've picked you off?
Are you honestly prepared to condem your wife/kids/family/friends to rape/mutilation/torture, because you tried to scare off some people? And on that note, think about how thats going to affect your relationship with the people in your area. Word will get out.. Most people take a dim view of torture, no matter which side you're on. The next time you have a disagreement with farmer brown down the street, he might just shoot you in the back, because he's afraid he's next.
Originally Posted by emt1581
I see what you are saying about a plan but it seems like most of your plan deals with acknowledging the routes of escape and/or attack...no?
What about staying hidden or attacking/defending?
Or is the plan still going to be to just "not be there" as is the common cop-out with most S&P threads that deal with gang/gov. forces?
Mind you I'm not being sarcastic or poking fun at you but that really is what most say. And sometimes you just can't avoid the fight or stay well hidden.
AK talked about a force multiplier. I think an AR vs. a lowly bolt .22lr MIGHT be an example. But for the average nuclear family, what would be others?
EMT, if your plan is to fight, its pretty simple. Plan to die.
The reason that "not to be there" is such a common answer, is because its the RIGHT answer.
As a single family group/unit even in a good numbered size, you simply can't hope to hold ground against a gang/.mil/.gov entity. They can pen you in, like Waco/Ruby Ridge/Every other hostage situation, and simply wait you out. It takes very, very few to hold you in, and they can resupply far easier than you.
In reality, if you're planning on slugging it out/holding your turf, you need not only a established, adequate supply chain, but you need a force of dedicated shooters. Because you need the guys fighting to be free from any/all other dutys to be out actively persuing/forcing engagements away from your turf, and a supply chain allowing them to return re-arm/re-equip, and leave again.
Originally Posted by PaulMason
There is a wide spread of people 8 - 15 and the size of what you are defending is important. You have to think in terms of shifts, area of coverage and reaction time.
If you just assume covering 4 directions/field of view with 8 people you would have to have 4 on and 4 off over 24 hours - maybe 2 - 12 hour shifts/day. And those on duty would have to have good communications with each other and the base. Not much of any other outside would would get done unless there were others at base.
y point is just throwing out a number of people does not say much about the situation.
Personally, I think going 'gray' gives those going alone the best chance.
The number, is loosely based upon the .mil doctrine of the fire-team/squad. And as I referenced, was talking simply about pure shooters.
If you've got that number of shooters, unless you're dealing with a whole crap ton of acreage, you're established well enough to be able to actually take/hold some ground. Without such a group, you're not going to be able to effectively do much, except defend your group in a pinch. But in doing so, pretty much curtails all other activity.
IMO, "going gray" is a terrible misnomer, because there are an awful lot of people who think they're awfully slick and "gray" and stand out like a sore thumb. Just because people don't stop to talk to you, or give you funny looks that you caught, doesn't mean people didn't notice. Infact, once you know what to look for, its often not that hard to notice them, because they make themselves evident.