Are preppers responsible for the unprepared?

@oldawg, it's OpSec Rulez! (if you want to be hip and all) ;-)

Seriously though, you are right. If you post what you have, how you've prepared as a defense, what calibers of weapons you have, etc. You've taken all the fun out of a raid.

I'd rather them show up with one of those bearcat things, a helio, and about 200 officers in full tactical (hopefully in summer) to find, that there is nada here. Bwahahahha

 

I'm just an ol Hellbilly so I'll put it best I can.

If Ya Ain't Close Family, & Ya Ain't A Simian Friend, Come Round Here & Yer Gonna Be Eating BuckShot!!!

 

When one lives where we do, OPSEC isn't as important as most places.



It is one of those places where a few good folks could be a major undertaking for quite a few. Any defense can be overrun; but some have the potential to be more expensive than others..

 

Holy crap Tikka, I guess so! Looking at that map, I'm trying to imagine what kind of advantage your location gives you, and this is what I've come up with -




See the man in the funny hat? He's pointing at Tikka's house, and his entire army is about to be decimated by about half a dozen preppers...

 

LOL, true and it would take a horse. The slopes are about 59 degrees or steeper and the valleys are flat and wide. The guy who owns the farm field has his own range and doesn't mind me shooting into the hillside. It is about 600 yards or so and I can hit drywall buckets.



Don't you consider your options?

 

If your horse can climb it, I could do it with a dirt bike. I see alot of potential there,

 

On a more serious note, (and back on the topic of this thread,) I agree that OPSEC rules.

That said, I see a great potential for "survival" seeds here beyond the obvious. Seeds are relatively cheap and easy to store, so if you stock up with way more than you need, you have yet another ace up your sleeve when the SHTF. This is where you, the prepared, have the opportunity to become a socially responsible member of the community! I'm probably being overly optimistic, but I have to think this gives you an opportunity to create allies that might otherwise end up looking in your direction. Such an approach is very situational, and might not be a very sound option, but then again it might be. (As they say, YMMV.) Also, I realize that feeding people is not that simple, and if their kids are hungry, it won't matter how awesome it was that you tried to help them - but the idea is for people to see you as trying to feed yourself, just like they are, rather than seeing you as the guy with food. If you're a bug in kind of guy, best to be a gray man in a gray house - which is probably much more difficult to do if you're the only one with fresh veggies in his yard.

Perhaps more importantly, if your neighbors all have gardens, then your house isn't first on the shopping list of anyone who comes along thinking they have a right to help themselves. I think there's a benefit to that, too...

Thoughts? Is this a good idea, or is it fatally flawed by showing, after the SHTF, that you were prepared even in the slightest way? I have to think that post-SHTF, people are going to figure it out eventually anyway, so better to have allies than have people simply see you as having something they want... what do you monkeys think?

 

A precipitous slope may be a challenge to an aggressor, but it, of itself will not guarantee a successful defence against the zombie horde, if they get that far into the boondocks. General Wolfe's successful storming of the heights at Quebec is testimony of a defender assuming an impossibly steep approach, is impossibly steep.

The principles of defensive operations still apply... best use of ground...all round defence, defence in depth, mutual support, maximum use of obstacles, security, flexibility, etc etc etc. Defending a ridge is an interesting tactical problem....usually with few opportunities for achieving enfilade grazing fire from a defilade position.

 

It's much like defending your house against burglars though. You don't have to make your house impregnable; just way more difficult to get into than your neighbor's down the road.

It may be possible to assault any position, or house, but unless you are a priority to your adversary, you may not be worth the effort required. Unfortunately for the Marquis de Montcalm, his house was THE priority. He also made the mistake of sallying forth to confront his enemy on the plains. The British may have still ultimately succeeded, but Montcalm made it easier for them by voluntarily surrendering his greatest advantage, his walls.

 

Things for barter will be the economy.

My opinion is that there will be a 3 to 9 month period when contacting people will be very riskey.

 

Quite true and as I said earlier any defensive position can be overrun. Unlike many, I know the ending of these matters; however, that doesn't mean we won't bite until it ends. I've seen the 3rd world which would be pretty close to zombies.

Correct, due to the terrain, grazing fire would not work even if I had the weapon and tripod. A 60 or 81 mm mortar would be nice but I don't have one of those either. We do have a Kubota with a bucket to dig decent positions. The reality is it isn't much but it is much better than nothing.

Well said and you do get the idea. Raise the ante and hopefully make it high enough whomever loses interest.

 

Nice. but no water..

There is a brook to the east; long walk but good water.

 

"And the Angels wept" Rainfall Tikka. Assuming your dam was 50 feet long and 10 feet high at the center, and level. Also assuming the slope to be consistent and symmetrical (just to make the math easier) . and assuming a fall of roughly 45 degrees. It would hold back roughly 50X1/2 (width)X height 10 X run of 10 X1/2 should be @1250 cubic feet of water. Double that if the slope were dug out to level with the lower level, and 4X if the full depth from end to end instead of tapered. And this is in just 10 feet of up slope from the top of the dam.
Now, assuming only 100 feet by 100 feet on each slope draining in your tank (20,000 square feet) X 1/4" of rainfall, is 5000 cubic inches or roughly 3 cubic feet of water. Scale up for the true size of your watershed size. A quarter inch rainfall is barely noticeable, and I believe your slopes are much larger than 100'X100'.
Castles relied on cisterns and rain water collection from roof gutters for hundreds of years.
As for your brook, does it have 10' of drop? That is enough for one of these pumps, or a solar panel charging a deep cycle battery and a battery back-up sump pump will give you enough head to run the pump from a raised holding tank to about a hundred feet up rise. I would set it up with a self-siphon to start when the holding tank was full, then it would run until the tank was drained, then refilled by the solar (or wind if you have it) pump.
Now this is straight out of my head, no charts or graphs. YMMV. (Feel free to correct my math if needed.)

 

Outside most city limits, you can build just about anything without permits or inspections. (Obviously, check YOUR local laws)

 

I'm not suggesting anything hidden or backhanded. In many places, permit requirements don't exist beyond boundary lines. Check your own regulations of course, and plan accordingly.

 

A Kubota with a bucket is a very valuable asset for hardening a survival retreat...obstacles...standoffs, berms, etc... um...and disposal of sacks of blood and bone fertilizer once the dust has settled.

mortars are unecessary....a couple of ballistae, a trebuchet or two...maybe an onager, some abbatis...caltrops and a cauldron of boiling oil...oh and a substantial supply of plumbata and pila....let gravity do all the work.

Agreed and agreed. Most looters won't be highly disciplined soldiers with all of the infrastructure necessary to resuscitate gunshot casualties. The zombies will generally be opportunistic (though deliberate planning and cooperative execution cannot be discounted) and will try more devious methods of overcoming a household than resorting to a pitched battle with well armed and well prepared householders. Nobody wants to die if the risks to be taken are greater than the likely returns...but on the other hand...desperate people are want to do desperate things.