Some thoughts about defending your retreat

[max velocity]

4. You may be a single family or small group without the manpower for a full security plan. I can tell you how to do a full defensive plan but it may be impractical in the reality of your situation. After the initial hunker down, and perhaps firefight withy looters, you will have to emerge to a very busy life of manual labor. Collecting and purifying water, chopping wood, gardening or farming, looking after livestock. You will be an original frontiersman with a gun. Perhaps you only have the manpower for one person on watch? Perhaps you have 'stand-to' positions and carry your weapons slung while working? Maybe you have to rely more on animals such as dogs for early warning? If you use dogs for early warning, they may also give away your position if someone approaches the house during the hide stages when you are down in the basement. Something to consider.

5. Think about the old west. My apologies to any American Indians reading this, but think of the old settler/'injun' thing, even conjure some old movies. As things go on, you may be out there farming, based in your log cabin. As a family it is impractrical to be on watch at all times. You have to think about ways to do this, such as keep your weapons with you when you are out in the fields. What about additional security measures such as a lock-down if the husband has to go out hunting, depending how many people you have at your location? What if you have to move as a convoy through 'injun' country, like the old wagons, looking for some farmland to settle and start subsistence farming? You need tactics and security measures.

6. So I think it is important to be realistic about what you are going to do, particularly as time goes on and you get complacent. Rotating watches as the months turn to years may be unrealistic. Children need to play, lessons need to be given, survival work needs to be done. It is unlikely that your retreat has the ability to be a permanaent fort. Ideally, you will get into a community such as a small town where people can specialize so that there can be a defensive patrol and guards, allowing the community to be protected as farming continues. But historically, even to the Spartans and the Vikings, warriors were part time and had to bring in the crops. I think the best solution long term for this is to use animals and perhaps a watcher in a tower or similar who can sound an alarm when the raiders are seen. Whereupon everyone can move to stand to positions with their weapons.

7. THis sort of situation would make it very hard to detect and protect agaisnt a professional deliberate attack by a trained force, approaching covertly to assault positions. Obsevers and regular clearance patrols will help with this, if you think a threat is likely in the given situation.

[Patriot Prepper]

To comment on #5 hiding in plain site. Even if a person were to make the cabin look unoccupied, it could backfire. In our current economic situation, when dwellings are unoccupied, there are people who are more than willing to move in and start living in the "unoccupied dwelling." They are called squatters. And it is a reality. I purchase foreclosures and many banks will turn off the electric and the water to help prevent squatters. But they still have a tendency to break in and set up home. LOL there are some crazy stories involving squatters.

Hiding in plain site should not depend on giving a no one lives here look. It is more a matter of appearing to not be loaded with prepper supplies. Hiding in plain site like all defense mechanisms is not a 100% fail safe method or even one of the best methods of defending a retreat. There are plus and minus elements to all things.

What you have brought up in this thread is that there is no fail safe method of survival or defense of a person or a retreat, and I agree. All we can do is attempt to minimize our risks and exposures by building into the retreat as many defense elements as possible.

As a bodyguard and a designer of retreats, I am highly aware of the shortcomings in both of these areas. In Executive Protection, if someone really wants to take out my client, by employing overwhelming force, there is little that can be done. All I can do is minimize the risk by building a defensive barrier for my clients protection that makes the bad guy use more resources to accomplish an attack. The same applies to retreats. By integrating multiple layers of defense mechanisms in the design and building of a retreat, I can minimize the risk of being overwhelmed as well as increase the probability of defending the retreat. That being said, there are no guarantees. Life is a game of probabilities.

I design retreats. Are they perfect? No. But they are, in my opinion, better than anything I have seen out there so far. I have put years of my life into designing and building retreats. Having grown up as a young boy working for my father, who was an excavator/land developer/builder, in some ways, I believe building retreats was part of my destiny.

Here is a link to my thread on this forum: https://www.survivalandpreparednessf...epper-Retreats

I have been given the opportunity to write a book on the subject, it will be a major challenge. I hope I have the time and energy and can pass on my knowledge to other preppers before the SHTF.

God Bless.
Patriot Prepper

[max velocity]

@ Patriot Prepper: I agree. I am simply trying to get people to think of the realities. If you can provide some technology to build a better location, that is great. That will help with the 'gold standard approach' and if you can do it, do it. There will be many of us left out there without that ideal build, and they also have to give some thought as to how they will approach it.

Could not agree more about the deserted dwelling attracting squatters, even just looking for a dry place to spend the night. Give some thought to this: don't make your property look totally vacant, just make it look like a place that has not got much stuff to loot, but that may be occupied and therefore it is likely that there are people who can protect themselves inside i.e. conclusion: go elsewhere.

I do believe that many preppers need better tactical abilities either for defense or movement, including simple decison making and self-defense. I have written in other threads how I think some consider defense as a simple 'check box' i..e gun bought, job done. There is a whole thing to this which I have gievn attention to in 'Contact' about the realities of this. You may need more knowledge as to better employ a self-defense strategy and avoid some very common mistakes that could leave you and your family dead.

[Grand58742]

To comment on #5 hiding in plain site. Even if a person were to make the cabin look unoccupied, it could backfire. In our current economic situation, when dwellings are unoccupied, there are people who are more than willing to move in and start living in the "unoccupied dwelling." They are called squatters. And it is a reality. I purchase foreclosures and many banks will turn off the electric and the water to help prevent squatters. But they still have a tendency to break in and set up home. LOL there are some crazy stories involving squatters.

Hiding in plain site should not depend on giving a no one lives here look. It is more a matter of appearing to not be loaded with prepper supplies. Hiding in plain site like all defense mechanisms is not a 100% fail safe method or even one of the best methods of defending a retreat. There are plus and minus elements to all things.

What you have brought up in this thread is that there is no fail safe method of survival or defense of a person or a retreat, and I agree. All we can do is attempt to minimize our risks and exposures by building into the retreat as many defense elements as possible.

What I was bringing up was the theory a lot of folks planning retreats come up with of "I can hide in plain sight and nobody will find me or avoid me." You are correct in saying people will attempt to squat and it won't always be the folks you don't want. Anyone with two cents worth of common sense will see what appears to be a semi-abandoned cabin/retreat and think "yeah, that's the ticket right there. Nice, secluded and out of the way." But the main point is I've seen folks talk about "lying low" to avoid detection and the fallacy of saying same. Nothing can be done to avoid that lived in look.

Here's the problem though...even if you look like you don't have enough supplies, again, some will see your location as a perfect place to set up camp and wait out the troubles. Maybe you run them off with presenting a strong defensive plan without fighting, maybe that person or persons have it in their mind this is their last resort and will fight you for it. The problem lies in the four big survival items: food, water, shelter and security. A retreat, even one that doesn't look loaded with supplies, has all four of those items and they are worth fighting for.

People will get desperate and even a location of semi well stocked is better than sleeping out under the stars for another night. People will fight for and steal anything when they believe they have no other options.

As a bodyguard and a designer of retreats, I am highly aware of the shortcomings in both of these areas. In Executive Protection, if someone really wants to take out my client, by employing overwhelming force, there is little that can be done. All I can do is minimize the risk by building a defensive barrier for my clients protection that makes the bad guy use more resources to accomplish an attack. The same applies to retreats. By integrating multiple layers of defense mechanisms in the design and building of a retreat, I can minimize the risk of being overwhelmed as well as increase the probability of defending the retreat. That being said, there are no guarantees. Life is a game of probabilities.

Problem here is defense in depth is not always the best option. Sometimes aggressive defense (abandoning the primary defensive objective to attack at long range) or defense centered around key terrain (splitting defensive forces to protect items listed on the CARVER Matrix) might be the best option. No one defensive strategy is going to work all the time and people need to be flexible enough to counter different threats by having different perspectives of defensive strategies. METT-TC will always dictate what defensive strategy is being used as all attacks will be different.

If we center ourselves on one particular defense and don't become flexible enough to utilize different defensive strategies, enemies can find weaknesses and exploit them. But if we are flexible and unpredictable as to what our defensive operations will be, opponents will have a hard time figuring out the gaps in our defensive plans, making survival that much more certain in the face of a determined attack.

[max velocity]

Problem here is defense in depth is not always the best option. Sometimes aggressive defense (abandoning the primary defensive objective to attack at long range) or defense centered around key terrain (splitting defensive forces to protect items listed on the CARVER Matrix) might be the best option. No one defensive strategy is going to work all the time and people need to be flexible enough to counter different threats by having different perspectives of defensive strategies. METT-TC will always dictate what defensive strategy is being used as all attacks will be different.

Grand58742: This is 'music to my ears'. When I wrote "Contact' my main issue was linking the individual/family/small group defensive side with moving it up to the creation of 'tactical teams' from small teams up to platoon sized (i.e. 30ish). I did this because I feel strongly that preppers need to be prepared for the full scope of what they may face in a full TEOTWAWKI situation. So, we go from intial survival at family level all the way through to tactical defense of a retreat/compound/small town.

Just like you say, we may need offensive tactics in some circumstances. That is why I cover offensive tactics such as raid, ambush, attack in 'Contact'. I also cover point/static and area defense, including use of mobile groups. In fact, the second part of the book is more like a tactical manuall for insurgemcy/counter-insurgency small team tactics, because I feel that to survive you may need some of that stuff.

It may be that the 'bunker' type mentality of some preppers and the adherance to what you describe as the 'myth' of some tactics, such as the isolated retreat, may not be enough. in any sort of lawless situation it would pay to become tactically savvy. If you have the manpower to go beyond a simple defense of a family farm, to the creation of a manpower pool that allows you to field tactical teams, then you will have advantages against any sort of serious marauder threats that may emerge.

If they really want to take your retreat, it may be a hard job to fight them off, and you relly can't do this from inside a farmhouse. You may also want to consider a raid, ambush or spoiling attack to dislocsate the enemy intentions before they have you surrounded and invested.

[Grand58742]

Grand58742: This is 'music to my ears'. When I wrote "Contact' my main issue was linking the individual/family/small group defensive side with moving it up to the creation of 'tactical teams' from small teams up to platoon sized (i.e. 30ish). I did this because I feel strongly that preppers need to be prepared for the full scope of what they may face in a full TEOTWAWKI situation. So, we go from intial survival at family level all the way through to tactical defense of a retreat/compound/small town.

Just like you say, we may need offensive tactics in some circumstances. That is why I cover offensive tactics such as raid, ambush, attack in 'Contact'. I also cover point/static and area defense, including use of mobile groups. In fact, the second part of the book is more like a tactical manuall for insurgemcy/counter-insurgency small team tactics, because I feel that to survive you may need some of that stuff.

It may be that the 'bunker' type mentality of some preppers and the adherance to what you describe as the 'myth' of some tactics, such as the isolated retreat, may not be enough. in any sort of lawless situation it would pay to become tactically savvy. If you have the manpower to go beyond a simple defense of a family farm, to the creation of a manpower pool that allows you to field tactical teams, then you will have advantages against any sort of serious marauder threats that may emerge.

If they really want to take your retreat, it may be a hard job to fight them off, and you relly can't do this from inside a farmhouse. You may also want to consider a raid, ambush or spoiling attack to dislocsate the enemy intentions before they have you surrounded and invested.

I was just saying this is the difference in our thought process so to speak. You've spent your time in the .mil as a attacker looking to take over defended locations. I've spent my time in those defended locations waiting on the attacker. We're opposite sides of the coin in looking at items for the most part; you on the outside looking in and me on in the inside looking out. Makes for a good thought process.

But there is a thin line between "offensive" operations and "defensive" operations when it comes to this sort of thing. Raids, ambushes and spoiling attacks are also defensive in nature, ambushes mainly. In the USAF we were taught raids and ambushes as part of aggressive defense. While offensive in nature, it maintains the overall defensive strategy by eliminating the threat far away from the final objective.

I think this is a good thought process we are on here and enjoy seeing things from another perspective.

[Patriot Prepper]

Yes indeed, a good defense will always have an element of offensive capability employed. Perimeter warning systems, patrols of property, LP/OP etc. will hopefully give ample warning time to employ an offensive team as well as a long range ability to defeat the threat. It is not wise to sit and wait for the enemy to start shooting at your dwelling. Our dwelling also allow for tactical withdrawal and retreat and do not hold our supplies. Just an empty shell.

[Matt In Oklahoma]

Grand58742: This is 'music to my ears'. When I wrote "Contact' my main issue was linking the individual/family/small group defensive side with moving it up to the creation of 'tactical teams' from small teams up to platoon sized (i.e. 30ish). I did this because I feel strongly that preppers need to be prepared for the full scope of what they may face in a full TEOTWAWKI situation. So, we go from intial survival at family level all the way through to tactical defense of a retreat/compound/small town.

Just like you say, we may need offensive tactics in some circumstances. That is why I cover offensive tactics such as raid, ambush, attack in 'Contact'. I also cover point/static and area defense, including use of mobile groups. In fact, the second part of the book is more like a tactical manuall for insurgemcy/counter-insurgency small team tactics, because I feel that to survive you may need some of that stuff.

It may be that the 'bunker' type mentality of some preppers and the adherance to what you describe as the 'myth' of some tactics, such as the isolated retreat, may not be enough. in any sort of lawless situation it would pay to become tactically savvy. If you have the manpower to go beyond a simple defense of a family farm, to the creation of a manpower pool that allows you to field tactical teams, then you will have advantages against any sort of serious marauder threats that may emerge.

If they really want to take your retreat, it may be a hard job to fight them off, and you relly can't do this from inside a farmhouse. You may also want to consider a raid, ambush or spoiling attack to dislocsate the enemy intentions before they have you surrounded and invested.

Without the uses of both offensive and defensive tactics all will be lost in minutes. There is not a single structure that can not be had as they all have there strengths and weakness. Alot of folks want to bunker in. Heres the deal on that, if you were deemed a threat and then bunkered in the atypical underground bunker you will find your air valves blocked off and your door welded shut with a dump truck pushed on it and that includes "both" doors especially now that national tv has shown everything.
If you dont move towards the threat at some point you may not be getting the full picture and will only have half the battle. I actually had to leave a site i used to frequent because this type of thinking wasnt allowed and the mere ownership of an AR made me "gung ho" which I cant deny to an extent but I also know that in my careers we always train to move forward in order to win. I dont want to take my kids and loved ones into a sh storm but there may very well be a time when you get mean and fight or no one will make it. It's the same reason we wear body armor AND carry a firearm, both defensive and offensive measures are needed
Well rounded approach with flexibilty

[Patriot Prepper]

@ Patriot Prepper: I agree. I am simply trying to get people to think of the realities. If you can provide some technology to build a better location, that is great. That will help with the 'gold standard approach' and if you can do it, do it. There will be many of us left out there without that ideal build, and they also have to give some thought as to how they will approach it.

Could not agree more about the deserted dwelling attracting squatters, even just looking for a dry place to spend the night. Give some thought to this: don't make your property look totally vacant, just make it look like a place that has not got much stuff to loot, but that may be occupied and therefore it is likely that there are people who can protect themselves inside i.e. conclusion: go elsewhere.

I do believe that many preppers need better tactical abilities either for defense or movement, including simple decison making and self-defense. I have written in other threads how I think some consider defense as a simple 'check box' i..e gun bought, job done. There is a whole thing to this which I have gievn attention to in 'Contact' about the realities of this. You may need more knowledge as to better employ a self-defense strategy and avoid some very common mistakes that could leave you and your family dead.

Thanks max velocity, I have build every measure I know to make the retreats I build to be defendable as possible. Someone would have to fight for every inch. However, we always have a way out and an escape plan.

I also agree that people must train more. Everyone in our group practices tactics and shooting several times a week. All our training is done with movement, as well as long range precision work. You can never have too much skill.

[max velocity]

Guys, this is excellent. But we are preaching to the converted. Who wants to write up the tactics post under "how to can green beans" and put it out there under the wrong category?:D Just so it gets seen....

All those whose ears are deaf to getting tactically able, simply because their focus is elsewhere, should pay attention. For example, I know that a food supply is essential to my family, and if I ignore that aspect of the big picture the result will be just as final as if we get overrun by bad guys. The opposite applies. You can look forward to your idyllic post SHTF rural farm, all vegetable gardens and the like, and having a couple of rifles to 'tick the defense box' but that will not help when a gang of marauding crazies shows up, with no morals and no concern whatsoever about your lives or stuff or any of that. No sympathy or human concern.

There is too much 'ticking the box' over effective defensive measures - and this includes what we have just raised: offense is the best form of defense. As Matt says, having the capability to go offensive does not make you John Rambo, it is a professional capability.

Grand: you have a point about lumping some 'offensive operations' under defense. Some if them, such as patrol or raid, even though a form of attack, I classify under patrolling, because they are a form of patrol, and patrols are used to defend a location. Raid is a deliberate attack that takes place as a patrol.

[rice paddy daddy]

Thanks max velocity, I have build every measure I know to make the retreats I build to be defendable as possible. Someone would have to fight for every inch. However, we always have a way out and an escape plan.

From the list called Things They Don't Teach You In Infantry School:
"Make it too hard for the enemy to get in, and it will be too hard for you to get out."

Long ago and far away, on a base camp deep in what was called Indian Country, we had artillery, belt fed weapons, bunkers, mines, lots and lots of concertina wire, fighting positions, everybody was armed 24/7/365, and still, a determined enemy took a toll.
Me, if our homestead is ever attacked by more than a couple of people I'll slip out the back into the woods. He who runs away lives to fight another day.

[Bama]

Great debate !! This discussion raises alot of food for thought for everyone. Every point and counterpoin t are quitevallid. I agree that you should only depend on your imediate household in planning a defenceive strategy. Sure you can lay out a plan and secure diffrent posts if manpower will allow. But don't count on having that luxury. I try to have a defend and retreat mentality because I only depend entirely on what I know I will have for manpower. Therefore I have several fallback locations with multiple cashes . Each with its own escape plan and supplies stashed to aide in the event my manpower doesnt pan out. My family are the only ones that are aware of these plans. I subscribe to the old addage "dont paint yourself into a corner".

[LTFAD01]

Grand,

Did you put your "rambling thoughts" to print under a pen name? Looks very familiar.

[Grand58742]

It was put on Survival Blog under the name Grandy. Other than that, no, just this one.

[Spero]

These are disturbing thoughts as even as I was reading this I found myself lacking in several departments. Thanks for the post as it true. When I first got interested in being prepared I started reading P.A.W. fiction. I got the thought in my head that the equipment was everything. Your points prove that wrong.