Raiding vs Bugging-In vs Out vs Foraging

[wheels]

Very much agree. The irony is that the typical survivalist mentality is completely contrary to this with the "I'll kick a** in the Brave New World" lone-wolf fantasy. I suspect it got that way in part by not being able to trust others, and being laughed at if you tell them what you're thinking.

Where did you meet these typical survivalists? I had thought those types were the exception rather than the norm.

That came about thanks to those preparing for EMPs and meteors that have unfortunately branded every survivalist a great big

And all survivalist's are now TFH, I'll let all my liberal friends know that they better keep their recent interest in preparedness low key, else they be branded as heretics.

There is a reason that even the cops do not go into certain neighborhoods when its dark.

And yet our military owns the night, go figure.

[wheels]

i have pointed this out several times in threads where people would shoot anyone that came by. you never know who it is or who is with them watching in the distance. they may move on or not you never know. but if the situation permits take a moment to evaluate the situation and determine whether and engagement is warranted or not. they may be lost or passing through and pose absolutely no threat at all.

try make your presence in the area as little as possible.

An interesting situation played out on The Colony series where they sent one of the the members wives as part of a group asking for assistance. They were told to move along until the wife asked about her husband by name.

In a perfect world you would treat refugees as you would want your family treated if they were refugees. In reality there will be the entire spectrum.

[kb58]

Where did you meet these typical survivalists? I had thought those types were the exception rather than the norm... And all survivalist's are now TFH, I'll let all my liberal friends know that they better keep their recent interest in preparedness low key, else they be branded as heretics...

Context please. I was saying that scary fringe survivalists create an image that outsiders remember, such that anyone who preps is immediately grouped as one of the the crazies.

[wheels]

Context please. I was saying that scary fringe survivalists create an image that outsiders remember, such that anyone who preps is immediately grouped as one of the the crazies.

I was pointing out your over the top generalizations about survival or preparedness cultures, and you provide another - cool.

You do realize everyone doesn't think it's crazy to prepare to ensure your family does not rely on the charity or goodwill of others, or the pathetic response of government agencies.

In some parts of the country prepping is closer to the norm, and being unprepared is considered crazy - strange isn't it.

[westcoastr]

I am concerned with what happens to any water sources in this situation, and the BOL/raiders as described above that decide to grab a hold of a lake will play the game just like you see the crocs in the Animal Planet vids. Just waiting for someone to come along before killing for either territorial reasons, or just for fun.

Lafayette Reservoir is mine, don't let me catch you polluting it or over-fishing.

[sharxbyte]

I just finished reading "One Second After" (excellent by the way) and it brought this to the front of my mind. Even if its not an EMP, it wouldn't really be that hard to cause anarchy, because sheeple freak out easily.





We should all buy Calguns patches and wear them in obvious places so we know our brethren

[Californio]

My home has 30 days preps, in case of Earthquake, because I would rather Public Safety Workers spend their time helping the old, sick and infirm than worrying about me. It is Patriotic, it is American - every able bodied Citizen should do it.

[meaty-btz]

The small individualist is the one who will be in the worst situation "after". The next worst are the "sheep to the slaughter" small groups in static BOLs (Bug Out Locations). They can only mask their presence so much and represent the ideal Raider Target. Raiders will operate like packs of coyotes. Raider Firepower will max out at a bunch of man-mobile small arms. Over time they will grow, shrink, and merge. By and large they only have the strength to prey on small group settlements. They are also cowards, they can withstand no open warfare without serious reduction in strength and limited ammunition (people have no idea how much material modern combat consumes.. daily). Same goes for the much storied "biker gangs" or "car gangs". They will be small or they will be limited.

The next up the food chain are the Armies. Small Armies that are either stabilized gangs who have accumulated power under a powerful central authority figure and amassed large caches of equipment, small arms, etc or they are ex-government forces who have the "good ****" and the training to use it. Armies seem really scary, but the first kind, the Power of Personality Large Gang may have government weapons but no training, supply is limited and they, in their ignorance, will spend wastefully of their resources. In short order they will cease to be an army of significance or at all having expended all their more powerful weapons. The other type, is both well armed and well trained but again isn't as much of a threat as you think. Combat == casualties and unlike the idiot gangsters these guys are lead by men who know the count. They know every rocket is one less rocket they might need later against another army or large gang. Every bullet counts, and a trained soldier is worth his weight in gold and is now.. irreplaceable. Which leads us to the strongest "after" group. The Fortified Town, run by a powerful personality type or a communal belief these are walled and fortified structures with the numbers and even possibly limited industry. Sure, they may possess firepower only equal to a Gang type Army but their biggest threat, the Ex-Government Army, would lose so many men and material taking the town that in the process would ruin any value the town had (modern warfare is destructive) that there would be absolutely no point in it. No gain, lots to lose. In fact, it is very likely that a mobile Ex-Government Army will hook up with a series of Fortified Towns or just one Industrial Fortified Town, alliances will be made and whatever army has one or more Fortified town now just became THE POWER in the region with recruits available and possibly even enough limited industry for repair and resupply.

In the long haul the last thing you want to be is a Small Group Static Camp, you are bait for Armies (who can take you at will) and Coyote gangs who also can overcome your smaller numbers. Individuals are dog-meat for everyone. Sucks, I know. For references on fortified towns read up on the Middle Ages, we are talking 20-30ft concrete or stone walls, walled farms with irrigation, and about 5-10K people each. Given modern arms such a location is too valuable to destroy and too difficult to take by force of arms.. which would destroy the value anyways. Small Fortress Groups are still easy prey.. 20-50 people, obvious presence, no means to mount any kind of extended or significant defense. Many people see disarmed peasants in the early 1000AD when instead often every citizen was a member of the Militia of the Lord of that land and could be called up at any times and was required to defend their town. Arms were common. Translate that into a modern setting that would mean every able bodied member of a fortified town would be armed. That is a lot of guns all in one place. You don't need to be able to pop the armor of a tank to disable it, though in such a large body explosives are not out of the question, they would likely have preset up fields of fire, mines, and tank traps etc.

[Librarian]

In the long haul the last thing you want to be is a Small Group Static Camp, you are bait for Armies (who can take you at will) and Coyote gangs who also can overcome your smaller numbers. ...

For references on fortified towns read up on the Middle Ages, we are talking 20-30ft concrete or stone walls, walled farms with irrigation, and about 5-10K people each. Given modern arms such a location is too valuable to destroy and too difficult to take by force of arms.. which would destroy the value anyways. Small Fortress Groups are still easy prey.. 20-50 people, obvious presence, no means to mount any kind of extended or significant defense. Many people see disarmed peasants in the early 1000AD when instead often every citizen was a member of the Militia of the Lord of that land and could be called up at any times and was required to defend their town. Arms were common. Translate that into a modern setting that would mean every able bodied member of a fortified town would be armed. That is a lot of guns all in one place. You don't need to be able to pop the armor of a tank to disable it, though in such a large body explosives are not out of the question, they would likely have preset up fields of fire, mines, and tank traps etc.

I'm going to take issue with the "every citizen was a member of the Militia of the Lord" assertion.

'Raising the fyrd' did not usually include everyone, and the arms of a peasant were not much use for fighting.

I'll offer as refutation http://www.regia.org/warfare/fyrd2.htm,

Finally, it should not be forgotten that the king's right to call upon 'every able bodied man' for military service was never forgotten. Right up until the time of Harold Godwinson the king retained that right. However, just because the king had the right did not mean he exercised it. The duty to serve was confined to the shire boundaries and for a single day, otherwise the service had to be paid, except in the Welsh and Scottish Marches, where 15 days seems to have been the norm. It is useful to note that when this levy was called out, as in 1006, the term 'the whole of the people' is used rather than the more military term fyrd. As time went by and armies became more and more professional and better and better equipped, a 'peasant levy' of untrained men equipped with hunting spears, and perhaps if they were lucky, a shield loaned to them by their lord, became less and less use. If men such as this were called upon (and it would be rare for this to happen), they would not be expected to get involved in the thick of the fighting. Rather, they would get jobs such as holding the fyrd's horses, guarding the baggage train, ferrying supplies of javelins and water to the fyrdmen, tending to the wounded, carrying messages, defending burhs, etc.. After all how much use is an untrained, unarmoured farmer going to be against a well equipped, well trained professional warrior who's been learning his deadly trade from the first time he was able to pick up a weapon?

5-10K people would be a major city - London of year 1000 (10K), York of 1300s (abt 8K), Paris of 1100 (20K), Rome of 1100 (30K). A 'fortified town' such as Chester might have 4K (early 1300s); Oxford had 5K around 1100; Cambridge 2K around 1100; Warwick about 1000 in 1100 (Domesday Book populations -- http://www.localhistories.org/locallist.html

Frances and Joseph Gies tell us that a garrison of 60 could hold off an attacking force of 600 (Life in a Medieval Castle, 1975, Harper Colophon, p 188). Of course, ultimately a fortified town or castle relied on outside relief if the siege were to be prolonged more than a coupe of months, but I don't see a post-apocalyptic raiding force having the patience, supplies or weaponry to maintain a long siege.

Now, would it be the case that our speculative P-A village/town/fortified whatsit would be rather better armed and more pervasively armed than the early medieval economic counterparts? Depends on how long the consolidation takes, I suppose; build up a population large enough to afford more than subsistence including some 'dedicated' military or guards, and I think the answer is yes.

[meaty-btz]

I'm going to take issue with the "every citizen was a member of the Militia of the Lord" assertion.

'Raising the fyrd' did not usually include everyone, and the arms of a peasant were not much use for fighting.

I'll offer as refutation http://www.regia.org/warfare/fyrd2.htm,


5-10K people would be a major city - London of year 1000 (10K), York of 1300s (abt 8K), Paris of 1100 (20K), Rome of 1100 (30K). A 'fortified town' such as Chester might have 4K (early 1300s); Oxford had 5K around 1100; Cambridge 2K around 1100; Warwick about 1000 in 1100 (Domesday Book populations -- http://www.localhistories.org/locallist.html

Frances and Joseph Gies tell us that a garrison of 60 could hold off an attacking force of 600 (Life in a Medieval Castle, 1975, Harper Colophon, p 188). Of course, ultimately a fortified town or castle relied on outside relief if the siege were to be prolonged more than a coupe of months, but I don't see a post-apocalyptic raiding force having the patience, supplies or weaponry to maintain a long siege.

Now, would it be the case that our speculative P-A village/town/fortified whatsit would be rather better armed and more pervasively armed than the early medieval economic counterparts? Depends on how long the consolidation takes, I suppose; build up a population large enough to afford more than subsistence including some 'dedicated' military or guards, and I think the answer is yes.

Solid argument I cannot counterpoint because it is indeed accurate. In my case I was thinking along the lines of later English longbow training of the 14th/16th. Arguably arms are more pervasive in America today by far than in the older age. When the Norse came to the British Isles individual villages were pretty much on their own for defense. Arms were as common as possible without an industrial base. A single sword, no matter how crude, was an expensive item. Let alone, mail, or brigantine. Boiled Leather would be fairly common. Bows for hunting. Short Swords were probably more common, arguably some probably ancient and kept short swords from the Roman Era. Axes would be common as hell and they would work. Mauls and hammers, daggers, etc. Really, excepting swords, most arms were modified common implements. Military Hammers are evolutions of conventional hammers and Military Mauls were evolved from the large wooden and stone construction hammers. Flails were evolutions of threshing tools. Arguably the lack of iron implements is what kept peasant weapons so poor. I am thinking military forks evolved from farming forks.

The key, interestingly enough, to how defensible the town would be is actually dependent on the attacking army's available siege engines (in our case mortar and artillery of varying size and capacity, though one cannot rule out shoulder fired rockets as being effective against a primitive wall). Arguably an Army with an Industrial Town backing would reasonably be able to employ engines against other fortified towns that resist. The openness to the use of the engines is more dependent on scarcity (or overall availability). Still though pointless wars with a diminished population base and without training support on the back end would see the end of any army that attempted open warfare.

Realistically the Coyote Gangs are the real threat to smaller survivor groupings. Would take some time before the Warlords established supporting towns and alliances that would enable even the dream of expansion by conflict. It is rather inevitable really, with so many trained arms-men and arms available.

[janus408]

Yes, many of us are our own worst enemy.

We haven't even discussed what will happen to all the street gangs who during "normal" times are intimidated by police presence but in a moderate emergency situation will be unhampered by law enforcement presence.

Yeah I really fear what will happen to LA in a situation like this, say a massive CME that destroys our power grid... The gangs are all very armed, ready for violence, and are not prepared for such an event. They would very quickly kill/raid neighborhoods looking for food. They also have a command structure that would keep their group close-knit enough that they would band together quickly and be a force to be reckoned with.

Luckily I am in the woods and they wont be coming for me. Or at the very worst, I will know they are coming before they even know they may stumble upon me. I also have a similar tight knit group of friends that already have plans for such situations (ie where we meet, what to bring, who does what, who gathers what, etc). So I feel safe enough against such an occasion.

[ClarenceBoddicker]

The whole concept of a realistic extended SHTF/post Apocalyptic scenario is pretty bleak. Simple logic will show that most peppers will be screwed. I can only see 2 options for an individual who wishes to remain free in a non nuke/pandemic scenario:

1) Have a fully stocked well fortified & very remote shelter built long in advance.

The shelter is the easiest and safest if the site has been chosen well & built right. It would have to be done years in advance & require total secrecy, even from neighboring land owners and government. A very remote hard to access run down hunting cabin property or mining claim with a lot of acreage on a mountain would be ideal. The shelter site should have a near by water supply or a good well.

An underground & well camouflaged hide is a must. Dig out part of a hillside under cammo netting & build it alone. Loose lips sink ships. When finished only some vents, an entrance & emergency escape will be above ground and very well hidden. Connex boxes would be ideal, but hard to get to the site. Cinder blocks, rebar & concrete would be easiest for a remote site. If possible, build it large enough to park your bug out vehicle inside. A running vehicle in an abandoned site will be suspicious & a nice prize for any trespassers. The hide should be built so any hunters & trespassers wandering around would not know it's even there. A run down cabin/shack or a mining operation would explain the existence of the road & past activity.

Besides the cost & time to build, ability to get to the hide before the end is a big problem. You would have to be ready to leave before the roads become impassable. The more remote the hide site is the less chance of successfully reaching it in time. Depending on how thing end, you could end up making many trips back and forth during false alarms.

Once at the site security & defense becomes a large issue. The 1st line of defense would be to make the road to the site impassable for vehicles. Fixed defensive positions can only be successfully defended by aggressive patrolling to keep enemy forces from gaining the upper hand. This was well learned in Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu, Lang Vei, Khe Sanh) and forgotten later in Afghanistan. Ideally remote sensors could be used if hidden solar panels could be employed. Even with elaborate surveillance systems in place foot patrols are mandatory to prevent complacency & to check areas out side of the surveillance range. Patrolling is a very dangerous activity & leaves evidence that the site is habituated. Patrolling would also be used to get water & hunt game. Stealth would be mandatory to avoid possible detection from trespassers.

If possible stay underground as long as possible to allow the survivors starve & kill each other off as much as possible. Depending on when the end happens 2 years of non winter fighting will reduce the survivor population to a much less threatening level.

2) If in an area with sufficient resources: stealthily live off the land.

Living off the land would be very hard even without open warfare. You have to carry everything you need with you. Hiking around uses a lot of calories. Exposure would be an issue in harsh weather. Any injury could be life threatening. In a hostile environment stealth would be mandatory & very hard to do while searching for food and water. You could be under surveillance at any time & be subject to ambush. Sleeping would be hazardous as you would have to be alert to human & predatory animal attacks. Perimeter intrusion sensors like PSIDs & night vision would be mandatory. A solar charger & lots of batteries would be required. Don't expect the batteries to last more than a few years. A few years of non stop patrolling would wear out your equipment & body.

The only option for a family would be the remote hidden site. Having more people would require more supplies & cause a greater risk of detection, but would improve morale. A family could not survive living off the land in a hostile environment. Joining a group wouldn't work, as any female would be a constant target in any group with males. Any male guardians of females, even young children, would be murdered at some point.

Joining any group would be a risky plan. Any group will be easier to detect & consume more supplies. Internal power struggles & back stabbing could/would turn into a Lord of the Files situation. In any group there will be trouble makers & petty tyrants. I would try living off the land before joining any group.

[amd64]

We have those with BOLs (who say that they'll shoot anything) shooting at other survivalists who bugged-out and are simply crossing their property on their way elsewhere.

We have those who are foraging for food inadvertently wandering into someone's bug-out property, who'll shoot anyone.

We have raider survivalists breaking into into abandoned homes, meeting other survivalists face-to-face who plan to bug-in and not be noticed.

These groups may well find themselves in a fire-fight with each other, yet these same people pleasantly discuss different scenarios here. Ironic how these plans can get us killed by none other than our forum buddies here.

No big conclusion from this, just making an observation.

There is a clear conclusion... running around (scavenging, looting, raiding, etc.) in areas you don't control will get you killed in shtf. And without available meds, even a little .22 rimfire wound in an extremity can be fatal after the infection sets in. Best to make connections with like minded people and stock up before shtf, and let the unprepared and raider-minded people wander around in the chaos and kill each other off.

[ClarenceBoddicker]

Unless the end comes with biblical floods, most homes will be burnt down in the early looting. Looters will grab what they want & torch the house for fun. Without LE or military protecting the "good"/wealthy neighborhoods, the looters from the bad/poor areas will swarm en mass to take what they want from those that have more than they do. They will use fire to punish people they don't like. Remember the 1992 King riots? Gated communities will be their 1st target, while fuel for vehicles is still available. The richest areas will be protected by the military/LE at first until the system breaks down and those forces disband and turn into raiders & looters themselves. The poor & criminals will have greater group cohesion and far more numbers than the middle class and rich. Look at any revolution in history, the haves were always the target of the havenots, as they are the minority.

In any big SHTF scenario trying to shelter in a populated area will be suicidal. The surrounding areas will be just as deadly with highly armed, hungry & horny groups freely attacking refugees. The only viable option is to get as far away from others before the end happens, or attempt join forces with an armed group. Life in any armed group will be brutal & short lived for most. Constant in fighting & power struggles will be just as deadly as combat with other groups is.

The idea of wandering around abandoned towns finding supplies to use is total fantasy. Supplies like canned foods will be wasted & fought over very early. Non crop food will run out very fast. Crops will only last one growing cycle if that. No power and fuel for irrigation, spraying pesticides & harvesting will result in most crops failing. Warehouses full of supplies will be fought over & many will be destroyed rather then surrendered to opposition forces. The Military & LE will seize many supplies early on to sustain themselves & the rich before the system breaks down and they disband. Before most of the survivors starve or kill themselves off, most supplies will be used up, buried or destroyed.

Any post SHTF rebuilding, if that happens at all, will depend on how many survivors there are. I don't see too many females surviving the Apocalypse & the post SHTF life expectancy will be very low, due to rape/enslavement and being easy targets for the later wave cannibalism. Most modern humans are in terrible physical condition due to their lack of exercise & animal based diets. Survival past age 50 for most depends on modern medicine which will be gone post SHTF. Provided the end did not destroy the environment, individual survival after around 5 years post SHTF should be possible, if you can farm your own food. Finding a female to raise a family with will be next to impossible.

[Californio]

What no more Chocolate, I want my money back.