# What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress (BOL) To Withstand A Siege?



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

*
What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress / 
Safe Haven / BOL To Withstand A Siege?*

*When I woke up to the "stuff" going on, I began to befriend Vietnam Vets to learn from them a different world-view, etc.
One made the categorical statement:

"The day is coming in America...
when the only land you will hold is by force of arms." 
That man was an old curly white haired wolf. 

Look at breakdowns in civilizations worldwide throughout history. He is right. That day is coming. Soon.
Read Civil War Two by Tom Chittum.
www.resist.com/CWII.pdf
The government is allegedly seizing every Apache from every National Guard Unit across the US.
That is akin to the British marching on the powder stores at Lexington and Concord, and nobody doing anything about it...overtly...yet...

It will come down to having enough people in one region with the capability to withstand siege.
I am talking perhaps many years in the future, but it will happen.

"You can drive now, or walk later." 
You can come now, with all of your resources, and all of your family...
and be a part of the solution...or...
You can come having lost some or all of your resources and family...
and be a part of the problem."
There is only one bio-region large enough and well designed enough to fit that eventual, but inevitable scenario; The Ozark Plateau.

Ask this question:
What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress To Withstand A Siege?

1. Enough Like-Minded Population Base to Defend It.
2. Internal / Protected Food Production System.
3. Internal / Protected Water System. Ideally, this is a stream or well or cistern
RIGHT UNDER THE FORTRESS
(read history of various sieges, Leningrad, Gibraltar,Masada, etc)
4. Internal Fuel Production for Energy.
5. Internal Materials For Housing, Defense and Warehousing.
6. Structure (If it were a Castle / Fortress) and
Terrain (If it is a Geographical Region) To withstand Siege.

The Ozark Plateau is 700 miles from the East Coast.
The Ozark Plateau is 500 Miles from the Rockies (an Impassable Barrier in SHTF most times of the year and the Continental Divide is the West Border of The Craton. West of that is unstable, unsafe crust -Volcano City, and in an invasion scenario, will be the dividing line in the west, for a short period of time, between Free America and Occupied America ala Red Dawn Scenario)
The Ozark Plateau is Over 500 miles from both borders.

To address the points above under:
What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress To Withstand A Siege?

1. Remnant people have been being gathered here for DECADES.
2. They virtually ALL have the mindset to be ready to provide food and shelter for as many people as possible. vimeo.com/user4829908
3. Water Sources:
A. Freshwater aquifers under the whole thing which allow one to drill a well virtually ANYWHERE. This allows anyone to have their own protected water source. It also allows for a free thinking people...because well water is not Fluoridated to calcify the pineal gland and pacify the population...and Chlorine to poison the internal organs. Both are Halogen Elements of which there are four -Iodine is a 24/7 necessity. The other three are poisons.
What did I say above? "Internal / Protected Water System. Ideally, this is a stream or well or cistern
RIGHT UNDER THE FORTRESS" 
B. Cold freshwater Springs put out somewhere between 3 BILLION to 10
BILLION Gallons of water PER DAY!!! 
Once again -realize this is a second water source under the fortress; 
"Ideally, this is a stream or well or cistern...or SPRINGS PUTTING OUT- 
3 TO 10 BILLION GALLONS OF FRESH, ICE COLD, MINERAL RICH, HIGH ORP, GOOD PH,...AND RADIATION FREE WATER...
RIGHT UNDER THE FORTRESS!!!" 
C. Lake systems...River Systems, Farm Ponds.
Basically, walk five minutes in any direction and find water.
If you can't do that dig a hole and wait for it to fill up.
4. Trees, etc wood-gas alone can probably be provided for a hundred
years without cutting one more tree down just from the trees
bulldozed to clear fields waiting to dry out enough to burn off.
Nobody ever need be cold in the winter.
5. See #4.
6. See Google Earth / DeLorme Topo Maps.

Now...ask yourself one more question;
Where would be the better place to go in a national crisis...

Would I prefer to move to a region full of "survivalists" whose brainwashed mentality is to shoot first and ask questions later, and whose preparations and "Main Mental Mantra" are for "Us Four And No More," and many of whom ask the question when thinking about hungry people coming to their door; "Should I feed 'em or eat 'em?" (True story. I heard this from an 80 year old prepper.) and who are so brainwashed that most will lean toward the second option...
or...
Would I prefer to move to a region where millions of people have been providentially gathered with the common theme in their heart to prepare for as many people as possible??? 

========================

"Read CIVIL WAR TWO by Tom Chittum. http://www.resist.com/CWII.pdf
Read George Washington's Vision. http://www.robertghostwolf.com/america/washington_angel_vision.htm
Read a little history. (See Below; "INHABITANTS DRIVEN INLAND"
Read the Bible; Ezekiel 38 and 39. http://israelect.com/ChildrenOfYahweh/Emahiser/eze_38_and_39.htm
Read A Geological Assessment of American Survival. http://www.arkhaven.org/Dawning/Dawning graphics/GREEN-ISLAND-OF-SURVIVAL-map.jpg
Hell, read the news, cause that is what is coming, HELL,
and the people in this country only have one place to go -
the safe areas of the country (maybe 5 or 6).
And according to common sense, geography (terrain), water (surface, ground and rainfall),
dictates for survival agriculture, plate tectonics, economics,
demographics, military strategy and tactics, George Washington's Vision,
world history, bible prophecy, secular history, etc, etc, etc Ad Infinitum, Ad Nauseum...
...The facts -ALL OF THEM -from every science and every discipline,
in every bit of history from every century and every continent,
The facts -ALL OF THEM -point to the same exact conclusion:
There will be ONE major "Safe Haven, THE major "safe haven,"
the largest area of refuge, the "land of Goshen" 
(There may be many minor and / or temporary ones around the world and in this country,)
That Designated Area of Protection (DAP)
will be the largest Divinely Protected Area, 
perhaps, on the entire planet...
will be that part of the Interior US Highlands called The Ozark Plateau.
This completely separate Bio-Region, different in the peoples inhabiting it,
the terrain, the aquifers below it, the electrical potential within it for free energy,
and 4 Plus BILLION gallons of ice cold fresh clean water surging from springs EVERY DAY...
This Ancient Mountain was designed AT CREATION as a gargantuan Castled Defense Fortress
-which in a Medieval setting -even was designed with an almost perfectly circular moat surrounding it in the form of the four rivers which are flowing out of it.


THERE IS ONLY ONE DETERMINING FACTOR AS TO
HOW BIG THE FINAL RADIUS OF THE AREA WILL BE...
AND THAT IS, HOW MANY
RIGHTEOUS, COURAGEOUS PEOPLE ARRIVE BEFORE
IT IS TIME TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS???"*

=================================

DO A GOOGLE STUDY ON;

* "INHABITANTS DRIVEN INLAND"*

* WHAT IS THE MORAL OF THE STORY? 
THE COAST IS TOAST- DO NOT BE THERE

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE VISION IS TRUE, OR IS BOGUS...
IN TIMES OF INVASION, AND INSTABILITY, THE COAST IS NOT THE BEST PLACE TO BE. * 

Washington's Vision;

3RD GREAT CALAMITY IN THE END TIMES;

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...rn"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

CHINA, 200 BC;

http://books.google.com/books?id=dA...9oTlCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

ENGLAND 1066
http://www.englandandenglishhistory...viking-invasions-of-england-793-ad-to-900-ad-

CORSICA 500 - 100 AD;
"A series of invasions and partial occupations by the Vandals, Lombards, and Arabs followed between 450 and 1050 ce, during which time the island's towns were destroyed, their inhabitants driven inland, and the coastal agricultural lands abandoned."

SPAIN 1487;
https://www.google.com/search?q=SPA...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

PHILIPPINES 1870;

http://books.google.com/books?id=KN...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA153,M1

FRANCE 1800;

http://www.foresthistory.org/Research/DigitalCollections/WWI/Faulkner.pdf

Not enough? Need more proof that coats will be less than pleasant places to be?

History - Britannica
... Lombards, and Arabs followed between 450 and 1050 ce, during which time the island's towns were destroyed, their inhabitants driven inland, and the coastal ...

Many of the Moro coast villages on these islands were burned, and the inhabitants driven inland; and there finally arose a sort of armed truce, which was not ...
History and Description of our Philippine Wonderland

... when they occupied the coast and displaced the aboriginal inhabitants. Driven inland themselves by later Han arrivals, the Li finally settled Hainan's central ..


----------



## northstarprepper (Mar 19, 2013)

As always, your post is full of information. In regards to the original question though I would answer one way. If any group were to try to withstand a siege from the full force of the U.S. Armed Forces, I am not sure there is anything including Cheyenne Mountain that could last very long against them. If the siege was by another post cataclysm force, that would change the dynamics immensely. In such a case, a leadership group well versed in warfare would be the greatest asset as well as the ability and willingness to counterattack to deplete the enemy force and destroy their morale. As for me, just put me on the wall with a gun and a few rounds...


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

northstarprepper said:


> If any group were to try to withstand a siege from the full force of the U.S. Armed Forces, I am not sure there is anything including Cheyenne Mountain that could last very long against them.


I agree... there's only so much you can do. Pick a reasonable level you can afford to sustain financially, and anything else must be left to the dreams....


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

One of the first things we learned in the USMC was that any position can be taken if you're willing to pay the price. Think carefully about any "bunker" defensive system. Bunkers are very similar to graves. Plus fortifications just scream that you have something worth taking. 

I haven't seen any plans yet that couldn't be taken with something as simple as a Coehorn mortar. They're easy to make and devastating in use.

So if you want to rely on fortified defenses be sure to build the escape tunnels first. IMO you're better off with seclusion and camouflage for your main living area and sequentially nasty means of keeping intruders out of the area should they venture your direction. Keep the battlefields as far from home as you can. Casualties for preppers are children, fathers, mothers and friends. They aren't just numbers on an after-action report.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

If you must make some cover of some type for cheap, two 4x8 sheets of plywood with at least a foot of packed dirt between them does pretty well at stopping most common bullets. Two of these, set in the shape of an "L" gives a little protection from a couple different directions. 

If you need more than that... just start adding $$$$ signs until you run out 

If your enemy has lots of .50 BMG, you are out of luck.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

"What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress (BOL) To Withstand A Siege?"

You will needed the following:

1. More water then what your attackers have or can acquire. 
2. More food then what your attackers have or can acquire. 
3. Enough personnel for 3 shifts with a ratio of 1 defense for 5 offense force per shift.
4. Fortress designed to prevent breaching by the offensive force.
5. Offensive force unable to control any higher ground above the Fortress.
6. A better Medical Staff and related supplies then the offense force.
8. Better fire power then the offensive force.
9. High definition sports Channel for the wide screen TV.


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

TheLazyL said:


> "What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress (BOL) To Withstand A Siege?"
> 
> You will needed the following:
> 
> ...


I am assuming that 9. High definition sports Channel for the wide screen TV. should have been # 1. and was mis-typed as 9. I understand with todays spelling and number checking system that it really was not your error... :wave:


----------



## Gians (Nov 8, 2012)

The best 'fortress' might be the hearts, minds and souls of our sons and daughters that enlist.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Please, keep the fonts normal sized.

It's impossible to have a place impregnable to a siege if they have enough people and supplies.

I'm not a believer in the Ozarks as the ultimate bugout location. It's close enough to be centrally located to massive population centers like Dallas, New Orleans, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, and the entire southeast.

I'd rather bugout to NW Wisconsin, northern Minnesota, or SW Ontario. All three areas are far enough from major population centers. Northern Minnesota is close to Minneapolis-St Paul but having 50,000-100,000 lakes to the north offsets that in my opinion. All three areas have huge numbers of small glacial lakes that would be perfect to have a house on. Those lakes can be a city block in size but be 30 feet deep in the middle and fed by springs. The winters are obviously long and cold but you can still grow a wide variety of crops.

In those areas you could reasonably expect people from Chicago and Minneapolis to reach those areas but I don't how many people would go north to bugout. As opposed to south and warmer weather.

The one thing I'd agree with with the OP was the unspoken idea that the best bugout locations are in the eastern US where rainfall is not an issue.

Another nice place would be Michigan's Upper Peninsula close to Lake Superior. Marquette, Michigan filters their city water. It doesn't require chlorination. If you have a good water filter and you're within a quarter mile of Lake Superior you essentially have an unlimited supply of very clean water.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress (BOL) To Withstand A Siege? 

For me? AVOIDING THE SEIGE! Be the grey man or the invisible man. Is any 'invading force' foreign or domestic, really going to send resources out to track a possible one person who might have gone into the woods that way or that way? Or... Are they going to keep together and gather up the majority?

This is just my opinion. Any 'invading force' foreign or domestic, is not looking to split up its numbers. They are already outnumbered. They will be looking to contain the majority first. 

Then think logistically and realistically. The OP is talking about a siege, with oppositional forces. Lets look at one example, Raleigh, NC. Remember also, every state has several major cities and many, many more smaller ones. Some oppositional force wants to take control. In short order they may be able to cut off major highways and secondary roads, but that is about it, their resources are tapped out. It is not like 100,000 armed and supplied forces are going to appear in an instant and march inward, killing or capturing everyone/everything in their path. A buildup like that would take time and not go unnoticed. Even at that, what about all the areas between major cities?

Next scenario is economic collapse, where bands of thugs loot everything! You are not going to need a fortress the next day because of attacks by hoards of thugs! Heck, there will be weeks of confusion and chaos. Individuals or groups of two or three might go looting. It will take them time to organize into anything resembling a raiding horde.

Getting the picture? You are not going to wake up tomorrow and all of a sudden every city is locked down, captured, and everyone taken prisoner or stores raided. You are going to have some time. Say you lose all contact with the outside world, TV goes dead for example. Wouldn't that be a hint that something is happening?

Again, for me. This gives me time to go out in the woods and dig some holes and scatter supplies around. I can't offer any real advise about how or where to build a fortress for this. If someone plans to defend a large farm, I have no advise either. My plan is to disappear, be invisible. I believe a group of 5 to 10 folks could easily do this and miss detection for a long time. Letting your cows, goats or chickens free range a few here and a few there would be more concealable than having 100 head in a large open field. I don't plan on having a huge group band together to defend South Fork, ( A reference to older TV) I plan on smaller groups flying under the radar. My current group is the puppy and I.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

I can not imagine any way a fortress could not be breached in this day and age. If it did not have a moat or other sure method to stop a large heavy vehicle it could be breached. We all have the ability to look at all the designs of every weapon used in history plus now have modern building materials and building methods at our disposal to create and improve those weapons. There are many ways to lob burning substances or exploding items great distances. We even have ballistic information available on our phones so we can stand back a couple miles and lob bullets into the fortress. You build a fortress and I can breach it or force the inhabitants out.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

BillS said:


> Marquette, Michigan filters their city water. It doesn't require chlorination. If you have a good water filter and you're within a quarter mile of Lake Superior you essentially have an unlimited supply of very clean water.


Ironically, their sewage treatment plant on U.S. Hwy 41 south discharges into the Carp River... right before it flows into Lake Superior... not even a mile from their freshwater intake.


----------



## northstarprepper (Mar 19, 2013)

I live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and hunt northern Minnesota. You might want to bug out there, but not many people could survive there. It is so cold for so long in winter that unless a person can take sub freezing temps for six months, they should forget about it. It can snow from September to May or even June. It's beautiful, and the lakes and wildlife are plentiful, but that would be a hard life to live...every bit as hard as living in Alaska.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

northstarprepper said:


> You might want to bug out there, but not many people could survive there..... It's beautiful, and the lakes and wildlife are plentiful, but that would be a hard life to live...every bit as hard as living in Alaska.


LOL, Yes it is. My best friend from high school and his wife/kids live in Baudette, MN!

International Falls, MN often sets the coldest temps in the United States each winter... BRRRR!!!


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

I survived in Minnesota for almost fifty years before coming down here. When someone asks me how I can take the heat here I tell them the truth. I was frozen for my first fifty years and I expect it will another fifty just to thaw out.


----------



## machinist (Jul 4, 2012)

*Location, Location, and Location*

are the 3 most important attributes of any real estate.

In this case, that location needs to be somewhere your enemies will not go. The best fights are the ones that don't happen. In that case, you could live in a tent.


----------



## rhrobert (Apr 27, 2009)

BillS said:


> Please, keep the fonts normal sized.
> I'm not a believer in the Ozarks as the ultimate bugout location. It's close enough to be centrally located to massive population centers like Dallas, New Orleans, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, and the entire southeast.


I disagree. The Ozarks IMHO is the best place to be for a SHTF event. Long growing seasons, extensive cave systems, hard to navigate terrain. People from those large urban centers you mentioned will never make it to my location. They will have succumbed to one of numerous issues they will encounter, if they even make it out of the cities.

Many of us have already "came home to the heartland"... join us  We're gathering for the future.

I hear a lot of people are moving North...or to the Pacific NW, and I applaud everyone who makes the decision to better their lives in preparation, no matter where they go. For me, it's the Ozarks in Arkansas.

As to an impenetrable defense...depends what you are defending against. The US government? No defense against it if they bring their full weight on you. I'm sure most here don't warrant that kind of attention.

Against roving bands of marauders? Can be accomplished with some effort.

Even 3ft thick castle walls fell. Fallback locations can be your friend.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm sure most people feel that where they live is the 'best' place. And that is likely true for them. In your home location you are very familiar with all the local edible plants, local water holes, local wildlife and where to find it, best 'secret' fishin' spots, local bad guy hangouts, all the little local back roads, and more. Advanced knowledge of your local area is invaluable and likely does make the spot you live the best spot for you to weather out a bad situation.


----------



## rhrobert (Apr 27, 2009)

hiwall said:


> I'm sure most people feel that where they live is the 'best' place. And that is likely true for them. In your home location you are very familiar with all the local edible plants, local water holes, local wildlife and where to find it, best 'secret' fishin' spots, local bad guy hangouts, all the little local back roads, and more. Advanced knowledge of your local area is invaluable and likely does make the spot you live the best spot for you to weather out a bad situation.


That would be true if I was born and raised here  but I wasn't. I searched for what I felt would be the best location for my family and after looking at several states, and considering all my options, I chose here, in the Ozarks, as the best possible location after all my considerations were taken into account.



hiwall said:


> I survived in Minnesota for almost fifty years before coming down here. When someone asks me how I can take the heat here I tell them the truth. I was frozen for my first fifty years and I expect it will another fifty just to thaw out.


I was born and raised in northern Wisconsin, and I wouldn't go back for anything. I've been all over the country, but here is where I feel at home, and where I'll be till I die, with my kin. Over the last couple years, many others across the country felt the same call, although a few wouldn't be missed if they went back to the Northeast 

But you're right, many feel that where they are is the best place to be, but others seek out what the best place will be. I feel I've found both. I also know the area better than most locals, so that helps, as does making sure I help in the community when it's needed.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The Ideal*



jeremiyah said:


> *
> What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress /
> Safe Haven / BOL To Withstand A Siege?*
> 
> ...


The ideal requirement for a fortress to withstand a siege is that I not be in it.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Nov 8, 2011)

Ozarks, ICF house, enough people for three shifts, spring, 18 months of food. Don't figure the likely assailants will have access to artillery or explosives, or the knowledge to use them.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

*Fortresses Eventually Fall ,my opinion.*

The Maginot Line was not destroy it was just outflank, the Bulge was never expected to be cross and we got caught with our pants down, the Atlantic Wall slow everybody down but never did work, The Muslim conquest of Sicily began in 827 and lasted until 902, when the last major Byzantine Fortress on the island, Taormina, fell, The Alamo in Tx, eventually they were all breached no form of shelter will escape an assault. These Mad Max Doomsday scenarios can take place, if anybody is holdup in a cabin or cave with tons of ammo well the attackers will be expected to also have a tons of ammo. Myself I don`t see the point on worrying about fortifications or bomb proofing my home or shelter in the woods (BOL) I do wish I had the time to play war games again but I prefer to worry and prepared about the now and enjoy my time with things that I truly enjoy.
Ps.to each its own of course


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

I live in rural area and yes there is a road out front that locals use. I have 5 acres well and septic. My idea is use the area out back mostly heavily forested and put in an underground bunker. It will concealed enough with small garden on top and both entrance's and exits well camo'ed alone with the air tube maybe inside a old tree trunk. Batt operated with underground propane and fuel as needed. (I could go on) but to the point intruders would come to loot and try to find supplies, but find little to nothing useable. they would either spend the night or leave to continue their hunt for food. Chances are anyone hanging around an empty abandoned home are very slim. With no electricity people who might happen to find a security cam would think nothing of it. I will be able to monitor it unbeknown to them. I feel at this point it will be the safest considering the location, other homes. Nothing to see here, move on folks. My answer to poor man's castle.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

BillM said:


> The ideal requirement for a fortress to withstand a siege is that I not be in it.


You might want to edit your text before quoting the ENTIRE post


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

helicopter5472 said:


> .... with the air tube maybe inside a old tree trunk.


Until someone tries to cut it down....

Might want to put a small steel building over it, and run the vents through a false wall. You could even make a "trap-door floor" if you are watching them on camera!


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

LincTex said:


> Until someone tries to cut it down....
> 
> Might want to put a small steel building over it, and run the vents through a false wall. You could even make a "trap-door floor" if you are watching them on camera!


Yep, I thought about that too. There is a lot of loose fallen wood around so I felt that there would be a lesser chance of that. Originally I thought about building a cinder block shed and running it thru one of them, may still do that. Again this area is rural, folks up and down the road know who's who, and in a SHTF situation would probably shoot first and ask questions later. I am in 8 miles from the main road and 40 miles north of Bangor, Maine. Most folks will go south towards Augusta, then towards Portland. If by chance the military, probably National Guard came by, they would just check the house, see its not livable and move on. There is a lot of miles of open and sparsely populated areas North of Bangor.
Thanks, I'm sure I will go over and over plans, and ask more questions as I go building this project.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Fortress*

My father was in the Hurtgen Forrest during WWII and they were overlooking a German Bunker that repelled artillery shells and fifty cal. machine gun fire but when the guard changed in the pill boxes surrounding it, they shot them up pretty good.

After a siege of ten days, a very small force fought their way to the front door of this bunker and rattled it with a BAR. Two hundred and sixty German troops had to surrender.

Fortresses and bunkers are only protection to a large force that controls all the territory surrounding them. Once you lose control of the surrounding territory, your refuge becomes a trap from which you cannot escape.

That is why I will never build one.


----------



## crabapple (Jan 1, 2012)

BillM said:


> My father was in the Hurtgen Forrest during WWII and they were overlooking a German Bunker that repelled artillery shells and fifty cal. machine gun fire but when the guard changed in the pill boxes surrounding it, they shot them up pretty good.
> 
> After a siege of ten days, a very small force fought their way to the front door of this bunker and rattled it with a BAR. Two hundred and sixty German troops had to surrender.
> 
> ...


IMHO.
The U.S. Gov or a small piece of it could flatten or break a hole in any Fortress.
The only way to hold a large compound/castle is to be the only army big enough, strong enough & well suppled enough to hold it.

Then you would not need the Fortress to began with.

Sorry, but technology has made a fortress Just a big target.


----------



## PurpleHeartJarhead (Mar 23, 2014)

mosquitomountainman said:


> One of the first things we learned in the USMC was that any position can be taken if you're willing to pay the price. Think carefully about any "bunker" defensive system. Bunkers are very similar to graves. Plus fortifications just scream that you have something worth taking.
> 
> I haven't seen any plans yet that couldn't be taken with something as simple as a Coehorn mortar. They're easy to make and devastating in use.
> 
> So if you want to rely on fortified defenses be sure to build the escape tunnels first. IMO you're better off with seclusion and camouflage for your main living area and sequentially nasty means of keeping intruders out of the area should they venture your direction. Keep the battlefields as far from home as you can. Casualties for preppers are children, fathers, mothers and friends. They aren't just numbers on an after-action report.


That's sound advice from a fellow Jarhead!

I would add that better than being the focal point of a siege, it is far better to practice defense via the offense (think extreme violence of action). Otherwise, if you are not suited to this task, it is best to be unseen, unnoticed and slippery.


----------



## vidarr (Jun 25, 2013)

Making your "fortress" invisible, from land or air is the best defence. Go as deep, and as far from any main trails as you can. Leave no "footprint", and draw no attention to yourself. 
If your plan is survivability, and sustainability, do not engage when ever possible. 



Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Hide in plain sight*

I would prefer to hide in plain sight.

Wear no special high tec gear.

Dress like the surrounding population.

Curtail our caloric intake to lose weight, (need to any way).

Place signage on my home that says something like "Caution HIV Infected Patients, Blood Born Pathogen Protection Required"

I would place some garbage bags with bloody bandages on the porch for good measure to complete the image .

If anyone was still brave enough to knock the moaning would start from inside with some profanity mixed in.

That is how you camouflage during a social collapse.


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

BillM said:


> I would prefer to hide in plain sight.
> 
> Wear no special high tec gear.
> 
> ...


All good till the government decides to test fire their new Defcon 6 flamethrower to rid the neighborhood of a possible outbreak... artydance:


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Good Point*



helicopter5472 said:


> All good till the government decides to test fire their new Defcon 6 flamethrower to rid the neighborhood of a possible outbreak... artydance:


That is a good point.

Only Meshack , Ashack and Abendigo could survive that scenario ! ! !


----------



## tc556guy (Apr 28, 2011)

On one hand I would say that it depends on the technology and weaponry of your opposing force, the people laying siege to you.
On the other hand I would say that as long as the forces laying siege to you have adequate supply lines, all they have to do is wait you out. You could stay holed up for years and eventually your supplies will run out


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Don't we all view our bug in/bug out locations as our fortress? All of us can only do so much.


----------



## crabapple (Jan 1, 2012)

crabapple said:


> IMHO.
> The U.S. Gov or a small piece of it could flatten or break a hole in any Fortress.
> The only way to hold a large compound/castle is to be the only army big enough, strong enough & well suppled enough to hold it.
> 
> ...


However, if you are not going up against a large force or modern technology.
Making the roads easy to bottle neck with gates & bridge will slow an attack down.
You will need a way to keep them from going around the road, logs,large rocks, cement wall, a creek/ deep ditch like a tank trap &/or a mine field.
This is a must because the attacking force will have BOV as good or better then yours.
Traps, fire, shooters at the bottle neck the slow the advancement, if you have a few good men out on their on who could follow the attacking force & harass them or pick off the men at the back of the bottle neck.

I know, I watch to many movies & have not trained in an attacking formation in 25 years.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

northstarprepper said:


> As always, your post is full of information. In regards to the original question though I would answer one way. If any group were to try to withstand a siege from the full force of the U.S. Armed Forces, I am not sure there is anything including Cheyenne Mountain that could last very long against them. If the siege was by another post cataclysm force, that would change the dynamics immensely. In such a case, a leadership group well versed in warfare would be the greatest asset as well as the ability and willingness to counterattack to deplete the enemy force and destroy their morale. As for me, just put me on the wall with a gun and a few rounds...


Thanks for the comments.

As with several replies, my point was to look at the things that you would need if you were manning a fortified position against imminent siege -water, food, adequate defenders, etc. I am not advocating a bunker mentality, or to gather together and to hunker down and wait for attack.

I would point out to clarify that my comparison is between a single, physical fortified position...and an area that is three times larger than the entire nation of Switzerland. 25% of Switzerland is useless to sustain life. 2/3 of the population lives on 1/3 of the land mass. 
The Ozarks are almost 10 times larger than that part -The Swiss Plateau.

Secondly, we need to keep in mind what the late Jack McLamb taught -that 90 % of "their" assets and resources will be chewed up controlling the money, resources, and people in the highly populated parts of the nation -the cities. One large city like Houston, DFW, LA, or NY, outnumbers the entire present population of the Ozarks.

" We are living in a time when the cultural, historical, religious, racial, economic, and geographical study of regions / nations like Switzerland & Afghanistan become critical.

What do I mean? Afghanistan is what is historically called "THE GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES."
Why? If you are stupid enough, and proud enough, and over extended enough to attack Afghanistan, it means your empire is about to die. 
Russia tied. Russia failed. The Berlin Wall came down. 
The USSR broke up. The US will fail. Period.
You cannot defeat and rule a nation of warriors when they own the high ground. Period. You cannot take an area without troops on the ground.
That is a basic dictum of warfare. 
Why did Hitler not invade Switzerland? He did confront them;
He asked them: "What if I invade with one million troops?"
Their answer? "WE WILL SHOOT TWICE...AND GO HOME."

Anybody know the Swiss Militia Credo??? No? It is:
Ein Schweizer, Sieben Deutsche. -(One Swiss, Seven Germans)
That is still their motto today. Think they are not serious about it?

How did Russia fare when they invaded Finland In 1939 in what is known as The Winter War???
Russia had superiority in tanks, airplanes, and troops up to 200 to one. 450,000 Soviet troops crossed the border. They were met by the small Finnish army which initially numbered only 180,000. The Finns were badly outnumbered in all areas during the conflict with the Soviets also possessing superiority in armor (6,541 to 30) and aircraft (3,800 to 130). http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1900today/p/winterwar.htm
The Finns had Skis and rifles, and knowledge of the terrain. Who won? Stalin said that 1.5 million troops went to Finland, one million stayed there...forever. The kill ratio was 40 to 1. Four man teams on skies destroyed 2000 Russian tanks.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1900today/p/winterwar.htm
Why has Russia never messed with them again, even with a 1000 mile long common border?
Finland has 700,000 pairs of skis. You think ski & shoot at the Olympics is a game? Ask Stalin: Stalin called Finnish ski troops in winter camo, WHITE DEATH..."


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

mosquitomountainman said:


> One of the first things we learned in the USMC was that any position can be taken if you're willing to pay the price. Think carefully about any "bunker" defensive system. Bunkers are very similar to graves. Plus fortifications just scream that you have something worth taking.
> 
> I haven't seen any plans yet that couldn't be taken with something as simple as a Coehorn mortar. They're easy to make and devastating in use.
> 
> So if you want to rely on fortified defenses be sure to build the escape tunnels first. IMO you're better off with seclusion and camouflage for your main living area and sequentially nasty means of keeping intruders out of the area should they venture your direction. Keep the battlefields as far from home as you can. Casualties for preppers are children, fathers, mothers and friends. They aren't just numbers on an after-action report.


"Keep the battlefields as far from home as you can. Casualties for preppers are children, fathers, mothers and friends. They aren't just numbers on an after-action report."

Very well put!!! I love how you said it.

THAT is precisely what I am advocating.

Maybe I can say this briefly??? LOL...
What most of you are looking at is just TSHTF 
-whatever that means to each person. 
In most survivalist's minds, it means the first few days after "whatever" happens -economic collapse, pandemic, asteroid strike, EMP, 
civil war, Natpos against Patriots, etc.

Ok, those will happen in whatever order, 
but that / those will be just the pre-game season as it were -practice games. Even under those scenarios -any or all of them, a region which has it's own secured water sources 
(rain, ponds, streams, river systems, springs and wells) 
capability to grow any kind of food -ie a Bio-Diverse region, 
one which is always #1 or #2 in the nation for cow-calf pairs, 
settled by a free-thinking people, 
(Montani Semper Liberi -"Mountaineers Are Always Free") etc, etc, 
will always be a good place to live.

In event of a nation weakened by any or all of the above SHTF conflicts, and which is then attacked from all sides by all of the PISSED OFF countries we have invaded, destroyed, bombed into near oblivion, irradiated with Depleted Uranium, etc...The Ozarks are over 500 miles from any coast (East or Gulf), and from both borders, as well as from a natural barrier to the west, the Rockies.
They will be the place of refuge, food, shelter, and healing for those who need R&R to get back into the war. 
They will be the last place in the nation that will see war up close...
That was as brief as I can put it....maybe cnsper can give us some Cliff Notes, and perhaps Sentry 18 or Bill S give us an intelligent analysis.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

*


TheLazyL said:



"What Are The Requirements For The Ideal Fortress (BOL) To Withstand A Siege?"

You will needed the following:

1. More water then what your attackers have or can acquire. 
2. More food then what your attackers have or can acquire. 
3. Enough personnel for 3 shifts with a ratio of 1 defense for 5 offense force per shift.
4. Fortress designed to prevent breaching by the offensive force.
5. Offensive force unable to control any higher ground above the Fortress.
6. A better Medical Staff and related supplies then the offense force.
8. Better fire power then the offensive force.
9. High definition sports Channel for the wide screen TV.

Click to expand...

I wrote this several days ago on my phone, but it got trapped in Outbox, and I cannot get the blasted thing to send it on...so I have to rewrite the whole thing(

That is beautiful; I love it, and you are exactly right!!!
Hannibal ran at will all over Italy destroying several Roman armies -at Trebia, at Cannae, at Lake Trasimene; he killed over 93,000 ROMAN SOLDIERS, destroyed over 400 towns and hundreds of farms. 
HOWEVER!!! He never laid siege to Rome itself because he knew the rules of warfare: you cannot take a city unless you have 4 to 5 times the numbers.
Rome had maybe one million citizens; Hannibal had maybe 50,000 troops.

In addition, even though the politicians were afraid of him doing so, and mothers scared their children for years with "Hannibal is at the gates!" Hannibal also knew something that Rome did not; "Every Roman citizen was a soldier."
Later, of course, when it came down to the Barbarian Hordes (Barbed (Bearded) Aryans) the Roman populace had degenerated into an effete, effeminate, weak, lazy people. Edward Gibbons, in his masterpiece 7 volume work on THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, used two quintessentially descriptive words to describe the people who once prevented a man that destroyed three entire Roman armies from taking their city;
PUSILLANIMOUS INDOLENCE;
They were Cowards. They were Lazy. 
Quite the description of the American Population today as I say in the trailer for the Beyond Off Grid trailer;
http://beyondoffgrid.com/videos/

Come to think of it, it is also quite the description of the usual
Us Four and No More," run and hide, "live in a cave" prepper and survivalist.

In addition to the 4 to 5 people to lay siege, in any kind of warfare, it takes up to 20 non-combatants for every soldier in combat.

Even their vaunted leaders -well nigh popes -boast of the fact that "we only have five people per square mile here in Wyoming." 
One of them sent me a map of the US at night with the instructions basically -"Go live where there are no lights!!!" My son said "hey, why doesn't he go live in North Korea!!!"
That is wise insight. Areas with low population will be run over by the first renegade military unit or outlaw biker gang that stumbles on them -eliminating them one by one. With five people per square mile, it will not take too long.

The "Redoubt States" (see note) will fare little better -not enough people...
in fact that region has very little to recommend it; 
in the case of invasion, it will be the front lines...for a very short time; the phraseology "S*** through a Christmas Goose" comes to mind.

In event of earth changes, it is on top of multiple volcanoes. 
Look at your list, or mine -it has virtually NONE of the requirements for a defensive position of any kind.

The Redoubt States idea was pitched way late in the game with very little planning or fore-thought. 
Their ill-thought out lack of fore-sight and planning will mean disaster for many families who trusted men who had no business leading them -Oh, that's right -they did have a business -that was about their only concern -making money off of the fear of the "survivalist mentality" that they sowed, and watered, and nurtured in their unfortunate followers.

"Redoubt States" note -This was an accurate word they chose there -see Wiki on it -"an enclosed defensive emplacement outside a larger fort, usually relying on earthworks, though others are constructed of stone or brick.[3] It is meant to protect soldiers outside the main defensive line and can be a permanent structure or a hastily-constructed temporary fortification.

There is a bigger picture. There is a greater good. There is the possibility that if we do not help one another make it -and that may mean helping total strangers, that NONE OF US MAY SURVIVE.

It is why soldiers fight; 50,000 might die in a "war" but they insure life for their 400 Million people in their homeland.

"Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!" 

As Spock said in The Wrath of Khan - Kirk: Spock!
Spock: [climbs slowly to his feet and walks over to Kirk] 
Ship. . . out of danger?
Kirk: Yes.
Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It's logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .
Kirk: -- the needs of the few . . .
Spock: -- or the one. I never took the Kobayashi Maru test, until now. What do you think of my solution? [He kneels.] I have been . . . and always shall be . . . your friend. [He places his hand on the chamber glass, and his voice is a whispered broken husk.] Live long and prosper!
Kirk: [places his hand against the glass as Spock slumps and dies] No.





*


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Ozarks, ICF house, enough people for three shifts, spring, 18 months of food. Don't figure the likely assailants will have access to artillery or explosives, or the knowledge to use them.


ICF yes, my son builds them and loves them. I saw a pic after a tornado -NOTHING but matchsticks around -not a tree, not a stud standing. ICF house looked untouched.

Did you make the move here then?


----------



## crabapple (Jan 1, 2012)

jeremiyah said:


> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> I would point out to clarify that my comparison is between a single, physical fortified position...and an area that is three times larger than the entire nation of Switzerland. 25% of Switzerland is useless to sustain life. 2/3 of the population lives on 1/3 of the land mass.
> The Ozarks are almost 10 times larger than that part -The Swiss Plateau.
> ...


My eyes are open, Ozarks is a tough place, beautiful, but tough.
It is also full of tough, proud people, that I would not want to stand against.
I am reminded of the Battle of the King Mountain.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/kingsmtfall05.html


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Any fixed position can be taken with enough resources and enough determination. The trick is to make your location more costly to breach than the OPFOR is willing to pay. If you are talking about scavengers that may be doable. If someone rolls into your front yard with a Bradley or an Abrahams not so much.

Having a house that is ballistic and fire resistant will go a long way. A defensible position is much of the rest. We're talking a book here and not a post so I will stop.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

crabapple said:


> My eyes are open, Ozarks is a tough place, beautiful, but tough.
> It is also full of tough, proud people, that I would not want to stand against.
> I am reminded of the Battle of the King Mountain.
> http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/kingsmtfall05.html


Thanks.

I read the Kings Mountain article. Very instructive.

The "Americans" had the will to fight. 
They knew the terrain better -how to fight taking advantage of cover.
They were better armed.
They were better riflemen.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

BillM said:


> That is a good point.
> 
> Only Meshack , Ashack and Abendigo could survive that scenario ! ! !


Shadrack, Myshack...NoShack...
Another story from an old man named S.M. Lockeridge.
Who would name their kid Shadrach Mesech Lockeridge?
Look him up on YT...


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

jeremiyah said:


> Ask Stalin: Stalin called Finnish ski troops in winter camo, WHITE DEATH..."


Pretty sure that honor was reserved for Simo Häyhä
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

Caribou said:


> Any fixed position can be taken with enough resources and enough determination. The trick is to make your location more costly to breach than the OPFOR is willing to pay. If you are talking about scavengers that may be doable. If someone rolls into your front yard with a Bradley or an Abrahams not so much.
> 
> Having a house that is ballistic and fire resistant will go a long way. A defensible position is much of the rest. We're talking a book here and not a post so I will stop.


If you figure that you will be on a limited budget with adequate time, many of the alternative housing systems match your criteria -fire, quake, wind, and bullet proof. We lived in a Cob House for a year -walls three to four feet thick. It had a level hole are on the inside about 2 feet wide. The outer hole was covered by a glass dinner plate. Remove the plate with a gun butt, and you had a nice shooting port...
One guy built a cottage -shot his wall with a .223 and .308. 1.5 inches and 2 inches penetration respectively. 
Compressed Earth Block (CEB) Cordwood, Adobe, Rammed Earth, Earthship, Earth-Bag, etc, all are fire, quake, wind and bullet proof.
All but very few counties here in the Ozarks are no-code counties. That means no cost for a permit, no inspections, no license, etc. 
You do what you want to do. Nobody is going to check up on you -except to tax it of course. But, if they can't see it, ie, identify it as a house, they can't tax it.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

LincTex said:


> Pretty sure that honor was reserved for Simo Häyhä
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä


*Oh, thanks for bringing him up;
Best Sniper in history and for a great read, try Bad-ass of the Week;

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html

ROTFLMAO funny stuff!!! Warning!!! Bad Language!!!

"Now when you think of Finland, the phrase "military powerhouse" isn't exactly the first thing that pops into your head. Likewise, when you looked at Simo Häyhä, a slight-framed Finnish farmer who didn't stand an inch over five feet tall, you also probably didn't think "total f***** unstoppable bad-ass". Well let's just say that first impressions can be deceiving."

"Simo was a member of a Finnish organization roughly equivalent to the minutemen of the American Revolution. 
He had done his state-mandated one-year term in the Finnish Army, reaching the rank of corporal, 
and was living a peaceful life in a farming village not far from the Russian border, 
spending his days farming, hunting, and crushing giant logs into sawdust with his bare hands. 
When the Soviets crossed the border into Finland with the expressed purpose of busting Finnish heads, Simo was called up into service.

He went out to the wood shed behind his house, grabbed his old-school Russian-made Mosin-Nagant M28/30 rifle, 
and headed out to take some commies behind a proverbial woodshed of his own."

"Simo Häyhä received five medals for valour, including the prestigious Kollaa Cross, and was express-promoted from corporal to second lieutenant. Throughout the war, Häyhä raked in a total of 505 confirmed sniper kills (in some sources he is credited with 542). On top of this, he also mowed down two hundred men with a Suomi 9mm sub-machine gun, bringing his total kill count to over 700 men in under 100 days.

Nobody in history has ever been credited with more confirmed kills than Simo Häyhä. He was an unlikely war hero who used patience, cunning and precision to defend his country, his home, his people and his freedom from communist totalitarian oppression. He was an unstoppable killing machine the likes of which the world has never known before or since."

"Throughout the Winter War (as it would come to be known), 
Simo Häyhä ran around being what experienced HALO players would call a "camping ***", 
and scoring enough kill shots to make f****** RoboCop and the Terminator hide their heads in shame. 
He would come to be known throughout the Russian Army as "The White Death""

But...as to reserved for him? Not. Sorry. 700,000 troops were white death.
Swish...boom, boom, boom, boom...swish. No tank crew. 
The Finns whacked up to 1 MILLION Commies. 
Simo did his fair share and more -and without a scope!!! 700 or so killed by a guy smaller than 99% of our wives. He was the quintessential winter warrior and may have been the first to acquire the nickname; certainly the greatest. But it was a winter war. It was a white environment, and every Finn wore white...and moved in virtual silence on skis. They were all white death.

There are at least two books titled White Death. Neither are about Simo, but about the Finn's Defense of their country in the Winter War -White War.

Anyway, here is a book on White Death;

White Death: The invasion of Finland and the Second World War: Russia's War on Finland 1939-40 
http://www.amazon.com/The-White-Death-Allen-Chew/dp/1931195226

"The White Death This is the definitive English-language work on the 105-day war between Finland and Stalin's Soviet Union during the winter of 1939-1940. While largely overshadowed by the following conflicts of World War II, the successful resistance of the Finnish forces against the massive Red Army allowed Finland to survive as an independent nation. This study of the war's dramatic deep-winter military encounters is course-ware for both the USMC and US Army. Research author, Dr. Allen F. Chew, granted permission to the USMC to reprint this work for its exclusive and official use."

and another;

White Death: Russia's War with Finland 1939-1940
Robert Edwards
Orion Publishing Group, Limited, 2007 - Russo-Finnish War, 1939-1940 - 319 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Death-invasion-Finland-Russias/dp/0753822474

"The Russian invasion of Finland in November 1939 was a critical turning point in world history...Two months after his cynical alliance with Hitler and their joint invasion of Poland, Stalin ordered the Red Army to crush the Finns. Everybody expected a walk-over: the odds were 10:1 in Stalin's favour. 
But the Finns fought bravely, and the Red Army - its high command decimated by Stalin's purges - fumbled to defeat after defeat. 
Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers died in the snow. 
Only after four months and the massing of over a million men and thousands of guns did the Russians break through and force the Finns to accept terms."*


----------



## besign (Aug 9, 2014)

invisible and soundproof are attributes you'd need in your "fort".  Snipers can get you rather easily in any above ground sort of structure

I'll settle for being below ground and very hard to locate.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

besign said:


> invisible and soundproof are attributes you'd need in your "fort".  Snipers can get you rather easily in any above ground sort of structure
> 
> I'll settle for being below ground and very hard to locate.


Well, if you like caves, they say there is a cave discovered every day in Missouri.
There are many, and big -many with lakes in them, streams, springs and even rivers coming out of them.


----------



## nightwing (Jul 26, 2014)

It is all in the matter of who the unfriendlies are


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

There are several in the Ozarks that have land who are seeking to set up their own community of like minded types, not too like minded as the goal is to be the leader of their own militia and religious cult as the guru. Nuts!

The presentation of this area is grossly skewed, energy production, caves discovered everyday, fresh water flowing five minutes away, simply not true. The natural resources of the Ozarks is much greater than most areas of the country, but we don't have an endless supply of everything. Much of the Ozarks is on the New Madrid fault, it produced the largest earthquake known in North America, it changed the course of the Mississippi, we have had minor tremors but who knows when the big one will come. An earth ram or cord wood structure being earthquake proof is laughable at best. 

This isn't the first post selling the Ozarks as the ultimate BOL, there has to be an agenda here, IMO.

Seems to be many here who have a wild imagination of warring armies running through the US, this is a pathology of disturbed people. The possibility of gangs, yes, armies as we know them in the 21st century, no, laughable if they weren't so paranoid. 

Thinking in terms of any fortress is 18-19th century thinking, looking at Civil War tactics is about as outdated as the musket and sword. 

Sense Spanish-American War, there have been no forts built, WWI was about mobile armies, fighting positions were and are built but nothing intended to be a long term fixed position, you can't win any conflict from a hole in the ground. 

Look at ISIS today, highly mobile, psychological warfare, internet savvy, giving the option of convert or die if they are otherwise acceptable otherwise it's extermination. Suggesting you could have a fortress that could not be breached is insane. 

There is no country on this earth that would or even have the goal of taking terrain in the US, not Russia, not China, no one! They have already stated that many times. No army wants to face any nation that has an average of 2.5 or whatever guns per household on the average, that's nuts. This nation will be destroyed from within, not by some warring outside force with guns. 

While you may have a home base, your security will be more to intelligence of movements and then being light and mobile enough to avoid conflicts, not take on an enemy head on but by guerrilla tactics and sabotage. 

You're not going to build anything significant that is going to be invisible or that is secret to the locals. You can post your property all you like, if the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Conservation, Forestry Department or the tax assessors don't see you for awhile, some hunter, hiker or party animal teenagers will. IF you think you can, you're delusional. 

The key will be keeping a low profile, appear to be something you may not be, appear to not pose any risk to others and keep your ear to the ground so to speak to know when and if the risk to you and yours increases to the point of evading that risk. You can become defensive when you're discovered, you can be offensive when you have the advantage, otherwise don't be so silly in thinking you're going to take on a some army division. 

I suggest you get you heads out of 15th century war tactics and join the 21st century.


----------



## northstarprepper (Mar 19, 2013)

I would have to agree with Ozarker on this one. It would be best to have a base camp of some kind, but in any post SHTF scenario you would need to be mobile unless you have a large enough force to fight off the opposition. If the attackers are military, you will lose, period. You cannot defeat mortars/artillery or air support, no matter how deep your cave is. I think the best plan is to have your supply cache safely hidden and remain mobile and as stealthy as possible. You can stay on one plot of land...until the bad guys show up. Then it is time to melt away and live to fight another day.


----------



## meggie2316 (Sep 6, 2014)

Siege resistance requires strength and durability and a lot of it to be sure. In the event of the population being so desperate for anything they can get to survive one can expect mass casualties of huge ones who were not prepared to withstand such an attack. People's morals and laws and conscience is thrown out the window in an ill prepared survival situation. Those of the population that think oh it's not gonna happen we don't need to be prepared will all soon face the harsh reality that in fact we do need to be prepared and that once the farmers and the meat industry aren't there to supply us with out daily allotment of food, we have to fend for ourselves and in doing that, those that are prepared are under an almost constant siege for the supplies they were responsible enough to set Back for this such occasion. People are greedy. Most anyway and no this isn't just a generalization of the human way. This is indeed fact that has been proven many a time in the after math of a disaster. The best thing to do would have some reinforced wall most likely concrete with steel reinforcements within the concrete itself and if you have the funds, space, and means then the absolute best choice in defense would be an underground bunker. Not to say grandmas root cellar won't do good in a pinch but if you imagine how many people will be trying their best to get at the little morsels you have locked away they won't let shutters stop them. Militarize grandmas cellar with steel doors that are cemented into a ground hatch that's easily hidden away from prying eyes. Under the time you may find yourself under attack you can quietly slip in and be protected.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

It wouldn't take a lot to keep the average group of people off your property. A 10 foot high fence with barbed wire slanted outwards would be all you need if somebody can't drive into it or alongside of it. It would be extremely helpful to have a couple of guard dogs on the inside.

But the more security you have the more it would give away the fact that you have stuff worth stealing.

No matter what you have, you can't protect yourself from a well trained group of people.


----------



## meggie2316 (Sep 6, 2014)

True, but in a world where it is easy to get a car and hot wire it a fence isn't gonna stand up to that.


----------

