# Protecting a MAG or BOL?



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

I believe studying history can give us answers on how to handle situations today.

The city of Kunduz Afghanistan, population 300,000 plus was over run by a militant force. Driving out the governments forces. It only took 1 or 2 days to capture the city.

If 10% of the 300,000 stood with the government, that's 30,000.

And I thought a 10 to 1 superiority force was need to over come a well defined defensive position. That would bring us to 300,000 attacking a force of 30,000 plus.

Does anyone have a reliable strength on the attacking force?

What does this have to do with us?

TEOTWAWKI event and a MAG with a well defined defensive position. Are most going to run at the first shot (as i believe is what happen in Kunduz)?

Or was Kunduz surprised and overwhelmed by a superior force?


----------



## ZoomZoom (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm not familiar with the details of Kunduz but was it a military against military action or was it military attacking a more-or-less civilian population?


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

ZoomZoom said:


> I'm not familiar with the details of Kunduz but was it a military against military action or was it military attacking a more-or-less civilian population?


I understood it was military against military. Population quickly vacated the city.


----------



## ZoomZoom (Dec 18, 2009)

10-1 is a pretty high ratio for an attacking force.
When I was in the Marines many moons ago, I was thinking it was 2-1.

Everything is so high-tech now that it's not necessarily the manpower but who has the best force multiplier equipment and intel.

When the coalition went up against Iraq to get Kuwait back, IIRC, the coalition only had 500K against Iraq's 1M soldiers. We decimated them because of our military is so much more advanced.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

The numbers were no where near that high. Yes, the population is 300K, but at least half are women.
In that part of the world, tribe and ethnicity are the primary loyalties.

*My impression* of the conflict from announced casualties is that the number of actual fighters is in the high hundreds/low thousands. Most of the government forces are protecting the airport which is their resupply point and not the city itself. So it was low hanging fruit and an easy propaganda victory.

Uzbek fighters were imported from neighboring Uzbekistan. Uzbeks are one of the many minorities in Afghanistan. They were part of the Northern Alliance led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, a Tajik, before 9/11.

The thing to understand about Afghanistan is there is no real loyalty to the national government, even among its soldiers.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

No way can a civilian force stop a heavily armed military force without huge numbers of people willing to die to over run the military force. The military can shoot from miles away with the big guns even without air power. If the military force had lots of ammo for their mounted machine guns they could wipe out huge numbers of counter-attackers.
For end times those with military hardware will do what they want to the civilians.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

A 3-1 force ratio is preferable for rural (field) warfare. For Urban warfare the ratio is 12-1 for more efficient results. 

A trained force of militia can withstand a 2-1 and even 4-1 ratio in an urban environment. The key to victory becomes one of tactics and execution of maneuver, leadership and logistics. 

As for Afghanistan, it's not really a country since no one has loyalty outside of tribe and village. We should stop trying to assume that every third worlder wants to be a native New Yorker.


----------



## Wikkador (Oct 22, 2014)

In ancient times I have always read that 7 to 1 against a fortified position. If we are talking about non mechanized people with small arms.. I think 7 to 1 is still reasonable.


----------



## AKPrepper (Mar 18, 2011)

Any militia group that tries to go up against a modern military force will be destroyed. So for that reason, I agree with most of these comments. However, I can't help but think back what the VC did to us in Vietnam. Here was this rag tag group of people that went up against the world's best military, and essentially kicked out backsides. Why....because of their tactics. Most modern military machines are simply not equipped to fight a op force that utilizes mostly guerrilla tactics. The VC did it to us during Vietnam and the French before that. Afganistan also whupped the Russians with the same tactics. Guerrilla tactics have a huge demoralizing effect on any standing army. There is no "front lines", you don't know who your enemy is, and their hit and run tactics give you very little to shoot back at. Yes, should a guerrilla force be discovered, its very easy to destroy them with modern weapons. But for the most part, it's hard to fight ghosts. My generation's war....Vietnam....is the perfect example. Granted, alot of the time our hands were tied by the idiots in Washington, and that too had alot to do with us not winning, but it was the tactics the VC used that in the end sent us packing.......


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

TheLazyL said:


> I believe studying history can give us answers on how to handle situations today.
> 
> The city of Kunduz Afghanistan, population 300,000 plus was over run by a militant force. Driving out the governments forces. It only took 1 or 2 days to capture the city...


I don't think what happens in Kunduz applies anywhere but that region. If you have time, you might read Mark Blackard's "The Righteous Insurgent". It should put the culture and many other likelihoods in perspective.


----------



## cogito69 (Jan 13, 2016)

AKPrepper said:


> Any militia group that tries to go up against a modern military force will be destroyed. So for that reason, I agree with most of these comments. However, I can't help but think back what the VC did to us in Vietnam. Here was this rag tag group of people that went up against the world's best military, and essentially kicked out backsides. Why....because of their tactics. Most modern military machines are simply not equipped to fight a op force that utilizes mostly guerrilla tactics. The VC did it to us during Vietnam and the French before that. Afganistan also whupped the Russians with the same tactics. Guerrilla tactics have a huge demoralizing effect on any standing army. There is no "front lines", you don't know who your enemy is, and their hit and run tactics give you very little to shoot back at. Yes, should a guerrilla force be discovered, its very easy to destroy them with modern weapons. But for the most part, it's hard to fight ghosts. My generation's war....Vietnam....is the perfect example. Granted, alot of the time our hands were tied by the idiots in Washington, and that too had alot to do with us not winning, but it was the tactics the VC used that in the end sent us packing.......


I have to disagree. The VC most definitely did NOT send us packing. In fact,following the Tet Offensive in 1968 the Vietcong ceased to exist as an effective fighting force. From that point on almost all of our engagements were against NVA (North Vietnamese Army) forces. Even then, the NVA never decisively defeated a major American force during the Vietnam War.

We got involved in Southeast Asia for political reasons and we left Southeast Asia for political reasons. Our forces were most definitely not defeated by any organized national military or any guerrilla insurgent group. Our defeat in Vietnam was a loss of national will, not a military defeat.


----------



## jnrdesertrats (Jul 3, 2010)

This should be interesting.


----------



## fteter (May 23, 2014)

I've heard the 10-1 rule of thumb before. But, with the force multipliers provided by modern warfare technology, I'd be skeptical of any kind of ratio or rough measure on the matter these days. It's a much more complicated question.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

AKPrepper said:


> Any militia group that tries to go up against a modern military force will be destroyed. So for that reason, I agree with most of these comments. However, I can't help but think back what the VC did to us in Vietnam. Here was this rag tag group of people that went up against the world's best military, and essentially kicked out backsides. .


They killed around 58,000 of our troops while we killed over a million of theirs. We never lost an engagement. We did not lose the war in the field we lost it in the press. Our press kept telling us that we were losing. After they told us that we lost Tet, and we won that mightily, political pressure caused us to pull out.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

what exactly are we talking about here?


The war in Viet Nam was... (all sides go apeshit crazy)
The war in the Middle East is... (all sides go apeshit crazy)

look, the fact of the matter is that there are people who gain power and authority (via .gov and religion) and they command power and THEY create these events. pure and simple. yes, do bad guys exist? yes they do. Do I feel insulted by NSA snooping on me when they have no legal reason to do so? yes I DO! but did that stop me from being a KIA at the grocery store when some ******** wanted to detonate a suicide vest and we actually stopped him before it happened? well now I'm invested in their success!!!!

right?


it's never black and white. there's a lot of moving parts. communications on the internet, money moving across who knows what kind of banking systems, all kinds of gaps in our own security from student and spouse visa's and we haven't even scratched the surface yet.... and oh yeah... guess what... Russia is still the ones that need to watch out. Muslims hate russia more than they hate us lol not making it up!


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

I think we are getting off topic in a 'General Survival Discussion'. Back on track.
Does anyone think there is ever a use for a MAG to possess a 50 cal sniper rifle? The cost of rifle, scope, and ammo is rather extreme and I certainly feel the money could be better spent elsewhere. Thoughts?


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Here are a couple free E-books relating to this thread.

Prepper's Guide to Home Defense: Defend Your Home and Maintain Security in Dire Situations
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...&coliid=I34YPDTETNCL07&ref_=wl_it_dp_v_nS_ttl

Zero to a Thousand: An Educational Guide to Effectively Hunt and Shoot to 1000 Yards 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...R&coliid=I8YWNG059Z1VX&ref_=wl_it_dp_v_nS_ttl

As always double check the price before you click "buy".


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

cogito69 said:


> I have to disagree. The VC most definitely did NOT send us packing. In fact,following the Tet Offensive in 1968 the Vietcong ceased to exist as an effective fighting force. From that point on almost all of our engagements were against NVA (North Vietnamese Army) forces. Even then, the NVA never decisively defeated a major American force during the Vietnam War.
> 
> We got involved in Southeast Asia for political reasons and we left Southeast Asia for political reasons. Our forces were most definitely not defeated by any organized national military or any guerrilla insurgent group. Our defeat in Vietnam was a loss of national will, not a military defeat.


Anyone who has ever studied the history of that war knows you are correct. There was no Dien Bien Phu for the US although Khe Sanh came close. In 1975, the NVA invaded South Vietnam with more tanks than the Germans ever had at one time during WW2. The Democrat-controlled Congress failed to act to send any military aid which led to the South Vietnamese forces being attrited and the country falling.

As far as a 50 cal, the cost of the whole setup even with a cheaper bolt action is close to $4000. For a high end Barrett setup, the cost is north of $12,000. Even the ammo is $4/ round (@ Wal Mart) while a more normal cost is $6-$8 for new ammo which greatly limits practice and therefore shooter accuracy.

A prudent person would examine the uses for such an expensive tool and try to achieve similar results for a lower cost. For sniping uses, there are cheaper alternatives available although range and hitting power may be reduced. For anti-vehicle tasks, explosives are a viable alternative.

For a fixed location, explosives make more sense especially when combined with methodologies to slow or stop vehicle traffic. Advance scouting will locate probable sniper nests which can then be neutralized with antipersonnel devices.

A person can buy a lot of Tannerite at $10/lb for the cost of even a low end 50 cal.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Tannerite is a wonderful product that every prepper should at least consider stocking.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

what you want to shoot and what you want to do to it matters.

a .50 will destroy an engine block. so will a .338 lapua mag, a .300 win mag.

a .308 (most commonly used for big game hunting or "zombie" defense) will not destroy an engine block. it will puncture the thin pot metal skin of a vehicle, but it's possibly going to shed it's copper jacket on the way in and start deforming already and when lead hits cast iron (or even aluminum)... yeah... probably not gonna be a huge problem. now if you blow out the radiator, the tranny cooler, the ignition components... now okay! 

my point being that firepower does have uses, and yes, I agree it costs to buy it, and it costs even more to use it and train with it... but you can't buy what's never available again due to legislation or some sort of collapse.

as long as people are meeting basic needs, well in advance to include water, food, medicines, defenses and knowledge to survive, than spending hard earned well researched dollars on a .50 or .338 might be just fine! (the defenses meaning it's better if you're poor to have an AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammo and the mags to hold it, than to spend that money on... well, you can't even buy the .50 rifle for that, much less the optics, the bipod alone will cost you at least 150... but as long as all those basic requirements are covered...

I'd rather shoot zombies at 1600 meters with a .338 Lapua than at 800 meters with a .308 and if the zombies are driving around in an SUV it would be nice to be able to do something about that too...

right?


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

The better ratio for urban terrain is 12/1 and for rural 3/1 for tactical advantages. 

I would suggest a 375 H&H bolt action, or a Winchester 458 bolt action. These were designed for Cape Buffalo and Kodiak bears. 

"How can we be expected to defeat the Americans by their doctrine when the Americans don't read their own manuals? War is chaos and Americans practice chaos on a daily basis." German High Command 1943.

Whether a "BOL" or one's home, one must defend against threats and dangerous threats. What is the alternative?


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

The .50BMG has its uses. If you want to take out a vehicle or argue with someone hiding behind concrete it comes into its own. For me that need is way down on my list. It would be sweet to have that capability but there are many more items that hold a higher priority that I can't yet afford. If I had a BOL with long fields of fire then I might move that up.

I have a 5/8" box wrench and I use it. I know people that have 2" box wrenches and even larger. I don't have a use for a tool that size so I won't purchase one. If one falls into my lap I might accept it but it is not worth the price to buy one new.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Depending on your local laws, I would look more towards a 30-06 AP round for use against vehicles rather than a 50 BMG or 338 Lapua. If you reload, you can use the AP bullet in a 308 rifle to enhance your current rifle's penetrating abilities without adding more equipment. It's much easier to lug around 10 special rounds of ammo than it is a 30 or 35 pound gun. A 30-06 AP bullet will penetrate between 3/4" & 1" of steel.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

Tungsten core, pointy bullets, make sure the powder charge is the correct type and quantity.


----------

