Building Your SHTF Combat Overwatch Rifle

By: Brandon Smith
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1557-building-your-shtf-combat-overwatch-rifle

After several years in the Liberty Movement working with various survivalists, you begin to realize that there are as many viewpoints and opinions on self defense tactics as there are people. This is because each individual survivalist’s environmental circumstances are a little different, and unique problems call for unique solutions. That said, there are certain universal elements that every survivalist should consider, and certain pieces of gear that can aid us greatly regardless of our particular situation. I believe the concept of the “overwatch rifle” is one of these universal elements, and an often overlooked combat necessity.

Preparing for a fight, in general terms, is about understanding one’s own weaknesses better than one’s opponent. This means rigorously examining your capabilities and rounding them out as much as possible. Are you strong in close quarters but terrible at a distance? Are you able to engage an enemy regardless of his position, or, do you have to risk closing the gap while he waits comfortably for you? Are you ready mentally and technically for surprises?

The overwatch rifle is not just a tool, it is also a strategy, and when I refer to “overwatch”, I am referring to a guerrilla methodology, not the standard military usage involving sniper support.

This strategy revolves around adaptability, movement, and creative offense. You have to be physically fit and ready to move quickly from one engagement to the next in a sequence that creates the utmost advantage for you and your team. You have to be willing to move from a rear supporting role to a forward scouting role at a moments notice. Sometimes, you have to operate at the very center of it all, coordinating supporting elements and removing obstacles in their path.

Not everyone can serve this role within their team. The overwatch rifle does not automatically make a survivalist overwatch ready. It is the man that makes the rifle effective, not the rifle that makes the man effective.

But before I discuss overwatch rifle design ideas, I want to address a question that ALWAYS comes up when I write an article dealing with any defensive measures:

“Who do you plan to fight?”

The question often insinuates that there is “no one” to fight and that such prepping articles are based in “paranoia”, or, that the enemy will be so technologically advanced that it is “foolish” of us to believe that we can fight them.

My answer is simple – I will fight anyone who attempts to undermine my individual freedom and safety, the individual freedom and safety of the people I care about, innocent citizens, and even future generations I will never meet. Anyone who suggests that such threats do not exist - foreign, domestic, and internationalist - must have been living under a rotting log for the past several years (or they’ve been mesmerized by Facebook and “reality” television, which is very similar). The superiority of these very real threats is irrelevant. I’ve been a fighter for most of my life, and I know well that the biggest and most intimidating opponents are often the easiest to topple in the end, as long as you have the will to press forward, and the intelligence to engage them in a way they cannot predict.

If you are an enemy of liberty and the constitutional philosophy of natural law, then you are my enemy, and if you push me, I will push back. Count on it…

This principle goes for tyrannical political systems as well. When a society loses its ability to regulate and restrict government, when all authority is derived through backroom brokered deals between the money elite and puppet politicians on both sides of the aisle, when individual liberties are deemed expendable in the name of illusory “collective safety”, and when the establishment proclaims that the only way for the public to be prosperous is for the bureaucracy to be prosperous, a war is soon at hand.

The elites will never walk away quietly and neither will we. There are Americans who still respect the virtues of freedom, and there are people in this world whose only goal is to dominate and enslave. We are at a dangerous impasse, and I believe there may be only one way left to fully resolve it…

Of course, when one discusses citizen armament and preparation for combat, the assumption is that every survivalist has already undertaken the correct prerequisite steps to make himself an effective fighter. Before anyone even considers combat preparedness, they should have already:

1) Stockpiled ample food and water.
2) Stockpiled proper medical and emergency first aid.
3) Stockpiled ample ammunition.
4) Chosen a retreat location and hardened their home for defense.
5) Been diligent in their personal health.
6) Trained their bodies for the most terrible rigors imaginable.
7) Trained their minds to be psychologically ready for combat.
8) Trained to control the jarring fight-or-flight response caused by the influx of adrenaline.
9) Fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds through each of the weapons they intend to use in combat until they know them intimately.
10) Studied the history of combat tactics and war strategy (especially asymmetric warfare).
11) Built up a community of like minded individuals who are also prepared.

If you have not at least begun to pursue all of these goals then you are not ready to pull the trigger. Period. If you don’t respect yourself enough to prepare in a practical way, the enemy certainly won’t respect you either, and why should he? You’ll be the punchline of a sad joke, the bullseye on the target, and just another notch in his rifle stock.

If you have at least initiated preparations in all of the above areas, THEN it is time to take a look at your rifle setup…

The Overwatch Concept In Asymmetric Warfare

The term “overwatch” is most often applied when a sniper team is placed in a supporting role during a major offensive. However, the concept has expanded into other areas, especially where guerrilla warfare is concerned, and I would like to use the broader definition here. A person on “overwatch” could be a sniper, or a general team member who is able to place precision fire almost anywhere on the battlefield at vectors difficult for the enemy to spot. This means being in a central position covering not one sector, but all sectors of fire, and striking the enemy from one angle while he is distracted by another.

Being in an overwatch role would mean a certain freedom of movement. You are often designating your own targets and your own fields of fire as you go, and as your teammates push forward. But, it also means you have to be highly adaptable, quick thinking, creative and imaginative in your strategy, and be willing to cause enough damage during a fight to sometimes draw the majority of enemy fire. You become the fulcrum of your team’s initiative.

Ideally, you would want every person you work with to be able to fill the overwatch position, and be able to think in terms of creative combat. The overwatch strategy is meant to stall an enemy advance, destroy enemy sniper positions, create openings in enemy lines, and thus, create targets of opportunity for other team members.

Designing Your Overwatch Rifle

The weapons system you use for overwatch will depend greatly on what you find works best for you as an individual. However, here are some issues you need to take into consideration before building your weapon:

Short Range, Medium Range, Long Range: Your overwatch rifle must be able to engage targets at almost any range (between 0 – 800 yards would be ideal). You must also be able to shift from medium and long range opponents to close range surprise attacks quickly and efficiently.

Penetration And Distance: The caliber you choose should not only be able to travel long distances, but also maintain strong penetration ability at those distances.

Precision: The rifle should fire consistent groups of less than 1 MOA (at least 1” groups at 100 yards).

Frequency Of Fire: The more fire you can put down range quickly and accurately, the better. This means semi-auto rather than bolt action.

Adaptable To Optics: The weapon should have a rail system that accommodates a number of optics, making it adaptable to almost any situation. Or, at least modifiable for a rail.

Rifle Systems

I have found that the .308 military caliber tends to be the most practical for overwatch requirements. The bullet has long range capabilities and far greater penetration than the AR-15’s .223 caliber, or the AK-47’s 7.62 × 39 caliber. The AR and AK are great for close range, room-to-room fighting, and some medium range targets without cover, but they have many limitations and are not useful for overwatch. I have also chosen .308 rifles that are semi-automatic, and that can be fitted with comprehensive rail systems. A common complaint concerning .308 tactical rifles is that they are "too heavy" and slow to aim. All I can say is, if you can't wield the weapon effectively, do some push-ups until you can.

Here is a short list of possible rifle platforms:

AR-10
FN FAL
Springfield M1A
FN SCAR
FNAR
Saiga .308
Heckler & Koch PTR-91

I’m sure there are few more that could be added here, and I recommend all readers carefully research and fire the weapon they are interested in before purchasing it (especially at today’s prices).

Optics

Next, you need to devise an optics system that allows you to engage at a distance AND up-close and personal. There are many ways of setting up a rifle for this, but most involve a combination of a scope and red dot, or a scope and iron sights. Here are some ideas…

Variable Scope: A variable scope, as opposed to a fixed power, makes it possible to shift your focus from a wider field of view to narrow longer distance shot with a twist of a dial. But such a scope alone will not enable the kind of speed you will require for overwatch. Buying a cheap hunting variable is also not advised. Make sure the glass is good, and the body can take a beating. Spend the extra cash…

Mini-Red Dot / Variable Scope Combo: Mini-Red Dots are very versatile and new mounting systems make it possible to tie one to your scope at any angle you wish. Some mounts place the red dot directly above the scope, but this often forces the shooter to sacrifice his cheek weld in order to take aim. I prefer angled mounts to the side of the scope. A very quick shift of the rifle to the inside and you can immediately fire without ever taking your cheek away from the stock. Red dots have no magnification, and thus no vision box. Both eyes can be used to target the enemy, and your peripheral vision can be utilized to acquire the next target before firing at the first. My favorite mini-red dot sights are made by Trijicon and Aimpoint, because of their proven durability in the field.

Pre-Designed Multi-Mounts: Multi-railed ring systems like the Burris P.E.P.R. Mount create a solid platform for you to attach a scope and red dot package to your rifle quickly and easily. Many of these systems are meant for AR-15 enthusiasts, but I have seen them adapted for use on .308 caliber rifles.

Short Dot Variable Scope: Short dot scopes (or CQB scopes) usually come in the 1-4 or 1-6 power variety. The concept was to make a single optics system that combined the speed and wide field view of a red dot with the magnification of a variable scope. Some of the more affordable short dots are made by Burris, Leupold, Vortex, and SWFA, and even these models can be pricey. If you have the cash, they are an excellent investment. Many models include an illuminated reticle that can be used in combination with night vision. Short dot scopes are popular in 3-gun competitions because of their versatility, and are beginning to see more use in the military. They can be very effective for overwatch purposes. I recommend 1-6 scopes in second focal plane, which prevents the red dot reticle from being magnified as power is increased, causing a loss of precision.

Night Vision: Overwatch includes nighttime operations. The tactical rail on your rifle should be long enough to accommodate a scope and a night vision system. Or, a red dot and night vision combo. Quick-detach mounts like those produced by LaRue Tactical are perfect for switching out sights and scopes quickly without losing your zero.

In any lopsided contest to the death, the less technologically advanced opponent must inevitably turn to asymmetric warfare; meaning, he must fight smarter, and be more effective with fewer tools at his disposal. He has to turn his weaknesses into strengths, and make the smallest weapon devastating to his seemingly invincible enemy. Taking on the role of overwatch rifleman means you must understand all the intricacies of asymmetrics, and be able to apply them in real time in the midst of a battle frenzy. It is a very ugly mission.

Above all, you have to have the will and the courage to stand against what you know are incredible odds. You have to be unwavering. You have to have a clear understanding of why you picked up that rifle in the first place, and maintain a deep belief in your cause despite the seeming impossibility of the task before you. Otherwise, fear will be your guide, and the fearful can never provide adequate overwatch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here for all your prepping/tactical needs: The Tactical Patriot Store

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tactical Use of Terrain/Ground

By: Max Velocity

http://maxvelocitytactical.blogspot.com/2013/06/tactical-use-of-terrainground.html

I am going to concentrate on the offense. Mainly because I have covered defense, types of terrain and the principles of defense in detail in 'Contact' and although I have covered offense, there is more detail that can be gone into about use of ground in the assault, rather than just the mechanics of an assault. I have also covered use of terrain for navigation and movement, which is itself a separate topic. So for now, I will hone in on offense and use as a vehicle for the discussion either hasty or deliberate attacks (or raids) to go through a terrain analysis process.

Straight up I am going to launch into one of the old faithful U.S. Army mnemonics. These are all well and good as an aide memoir but must be understood rather than trotted out as a standard answer (METT-TC anyone?) A standard approach that you may find useful is to use the mnemonic OCOKA:

O – Observation and Fields of Fire

C – Cover and Concealment

O - Obstacles

K – Key Terrain

A – Avenues of Approach

If you are attacking, you will need to consider these from the point of view of the enemy position you are attacking i.e. what are the enemy's observation and fields of fire from their position....? How will I apply that to a covered approach?

OK, after my foray into standard U.S. Army doctrine, moving swiftly on:

When considering terrain, or as I prefer to say, ground, you must consider it in conjunction with the enemy. Thus you do not think about ground as its own thing, but as enemy/ground (enemy & ground). You will then relate that to your position. It is a spacial relation and application of fire problem that is up to you to solve. The position of the enemy on the ground, related to the position of friendly forces and how the lay of the land falls between the two will inform your decision making.

I have put in a chapter on the 'Combat Estimate' in 'Contact': this is a planning tool that also acts as a 'mental trainer' for real situation when you don't have time to actually conduct a written estimate. It follows the process of going though factors such as enemy/ground and making decisions that will lead to potential 'courses of action' and finally a plan. Such a tool can be used in slower time when planning a deliberate attack/raid or off the cuff if engaged in a reaction to contact and hasty attack.

(I do cover MDMP, mainly as an explanation of what it is, and then I largely steer clear of it. My advice: once you get a basic understanding, stay largely away from set military doctrine i.e. trotting out the old faithful key words and mnemonics, it will bog you down. Free your mind!)

Dead Ground: this is a positional concept that applies to ground that cannot be seen from a position i.e. it is not covered by observation or direct fire from the enemy position. In a macro sense, I can't see the valley behind the ridge, so that is 'dead ground' to me. This dead ground concept is really important and goes to cover and concealment. You must try to develop a 'soldier’s eye for the ground' which basically means that when you view terrain, it’s not pretty, it's a relationship of slopes and angles that will either provide cover or it will not. In the micro sense, you can apply the concept of dead ground as related to the enemy position and your position. A simple angled slope may therefore provide you cover, and thus be dead ground from the enemy perspective. Even if it is only useful if you are in a low crawl, it may be the difference between life and death.

Cover & Concealment: Cover will protect you from enemy fire and observation (i.e. in a ditch) while concealment will only protect you from enemy observation, (i.e. behind a bush) and if the enemy fires through the concealment they may well hit you. Clearly cover is preferable to concealment but you may have to use a mixture of both.

Smoke: you can use smoke as a form of concealment. The enemy can fire through it. It may also be used as a form of deception. You can buy very effective smoke grenades for the air soft market. If you have the reach it is always better to smoke off the enemy position, rather than your position. With a handheld smoke grenade you are limited in range. Remember also that smoke can interfere with your accurate suppression fire. With a civilian smoke grenade, the smoke generation is not instant and thus you will have to wait for the smoke to 'build' before you can use its concealment; smoke also has to be thrown to take account of wind direction. You could perhaps use the smoke grenade to conceal the movement of your flanking assault element, while not screening off your fire support element.

Smoke can therefore be used to help when natural cover and concealment is lacking, perhaps when you have to move off 'the X', which is the enemy killing area, or to conceal movement across an area of open ground. Remember though, it is a double edged weapon - once you pop smoke, you will indicate what you are doing - thus consider it also as a form of deception, and have someone pop it on the right flank, for example, when you went left.

Thermal Smoke: used as a form of concealment from aerial thermal surveillance, or ground thermal surveillance. Burning suitable materials, such as oil drums, tires, brush, grassland or whatever, can create a thermal smokescreen that will drift across the area of operations, wind dependent, to screen off your operation and even your approach to an attack. This will work against visual and thermal observation. You may even just burn the enemy out of their positions.

Darkness: like smoke, darkness can be used as a form of concealment. However, consider the night vision capabilities of the enemy balanced against your own before making decisions on night attacks. You may also employ judicious use of white light, such as parachute illumination flares, either the handheld rocket type or fired from mortars if you have it. But also remember that darkness may have other advantages, such as surprise and the enemy having perhaps let their guard down/asleep, depending who they are. As usual, balance the factors and make a decision. If using white light, you can employ it as you wish, lighting up and then going dark to cover movement etc. The murky light and moving shadows will always add to the confusion and terror of a night attack.

Key Terrain: this is ground or position that provides a marked advantage to whichever side holds it. For example, if the enemy is defending a small farm complex, and there is a little knoll behind it, perhaps upon which they have an observation post (OP) then taking this key terrain (the knoll) may afford you a distinct advantage in assaulting the enemy complex. Not only because you destroy their OP/fire support position/sharpshooter hide, but you may also be able to position your own fire support elements there to support your assault onto the complex. Conversely, if the enemy continues to hold the knoll, they can not only observe and call fire onto your assault elements as they maneuver onto the farm complex, but they can also disrupt your attack from the knoll itself, with support fire. A preliminary surprise attack on the knoll would allow you to position a support by fire element there and consequently assault onto the farm complex. 

There is a difference between a deliberate attack/raid and a hasty attack. The main difference is that with a deliberate attack you retain the initiative because you plan it, move to the enemy position and initiate the attack from a position and at a time of your own choosing. So long as you can approach the enemy position undetected you will have a choice of where to position your fire support element and where to move your assault elements, where to concentrate force to achieve the break-in and your sequence of assault. Remember that 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' and there will always be a need to maintain flexibility and adapt to changing circumstance. That is why it is best to adopt a 'mission command' mindset where it is the achievement of a mission/task and the 'reason why' behind it that is important, rather than just simply doing exactly as you were told in orders.

A brief explanation on mission command (also covered in 'Contact'): although missions/tasks should be given in the form of a task(s) followed by a unifying purpose (reason why) this is not to let your guys go and do whatever they want to do on the objective. There needs to be a plan and a sequence, and that will be tied in with control measures to allow best utilization of support by fire, sequencing, and to prevent fratricide. So stick to the plan as much as possible and improvise in accordance with the 'reason why' if things start to go wrong.

For example, 2nd squad was supposed to echelon (i.e. move in sequence) through 1st Squad to move on and assault objective 2. However, an unseen/unknown mutually supporting enemy position has opened fire. 2nd Squad has taken casualties and is now totally involved in a firefight tying to suppress this new enemy position, which is to a flank. The platoon leader now makes a decision out of the original plan to move a machine gun team from the fire support element out to a flank to a position where it can suppress this new enemy position. While he is engaged with giving orders for that, 3rd squad did not wait for orders. They were in reserve (part of the assault cycle) and took the opportunity to push through 1st squad, past 2nd squad, and seize 2nd squads initial objective, thus getting the plan back on track but with different elements doing the planned tasks. Now that we are at this point, and the new enemy position is being successfully suppressed, the platoon leader can now view the assault on this new position as an unplanned hasty attack and give quick battle orders (QBOs) for a squad to assault, now that the enemy are suppressed.

With a deliberate attack, you are looking for various key positions. These should be found in your recce of the enemy position, before you give orders and conduct the mission. You need an ORP (objective rally point) which is where you will patrol to before dispersing to the various assault positions. This should be on a covered approach to the enemy position. Your fire support position will be covered and allow a sufficient range for your weapon systems to engage and suppress the enemy. Don't be too close; if you have the range and accuracy - use it. If you can get an elevated position overlooking the enemy objective, with decent fields of fire not obscured by too much vegetation, then you are getting a good fire support location. Your weapon systems, and also the ground, will decide ranges. If you have tripod mounted machine guns, you could be pushing back out to as far as maybe 800 meters, but balance this against the ability to accurately observe and 'fire in' the assaulting elements. For standard small arms, given suitable ground, you may be 100 meters away in fire support; you don't ideally want to be more than 300 meters away.

Your fire support element will need to be able to switch fire ahead of the assaulting elements and engage depth and mutually supporting positions as the assault elements work through the enemy position. Because of this, and because of ballistics, you ideally want to have an angle of 90 degrees between your fire support and your assaulting elements. So your assaulting elements will come in from either the left or the right of the fire support elements, which will be firing across their front and then switching away from them onto enemy depth as the assault progresses. Don't have an angle beyond 90 degrees where your assault elements are heading towards your fire support. If the angle is less than 90 degrees then your assault elements will obscure the enemy position sooner as they advance. Real life is never ideal.

So when planning for your deliberate attack you need to have a covered approach for the assault elements to move to a forming up position (FUP) which is where they will shake out into assault formation before crossing the line of departure (LD) into the assault. They will approach, assault and fight through the enemy positions in sequence and each element will be controlled by a limit of exploitation (LOE). This applies to any type of objective, such as trenches, bunkers, buildings, small complexes, compounds or a camp attack. The difference is the specifics of the assault techniques (don't get me started on 'CQB'!)

Once you spatially assess the enemy position you will be able to position your locations for the approaches, FUP, LD, fire support etc. and sequence how your elements will assault onto and through the enemy objective. Remember that although you will have a fire support element, each assault element will be providing its own integral fire support and fire and movement as it moves through the objective, and each assault element will be supporting the others as they cycle through the various enemy positions.

When considering the assault, think about distances that your guys will have to cross from the LD to the first objective, how the objectives (buildings/trenches etc) lay related to each other, how you will move from one to another and where will you position integral fire support elements. Are you able to assault downhill, or will it have to be uphill? If you come from a certain direction, are there any good options for fire support locations? Once you understand the spatial relations of ballistics, how an element covers another element and the characteristics of obscuring and unsafe fire support, you will be able to spatially plan such an assault.

The best use of ground comes into this when you are looking for covered approaches to move between one location and another and to close distances and open ground that you have to cross. Any movement in the open risks enemy fire. Of course, when in contact there is never movement without supporting fire. The more open the ground is the more supporting fire you will need to be able to survive across that open area. The more cover you can utilize the less fire you will need. Moving on a football field is totally reliant on the effectiveness of your accurate suppression fire. Movement in a ditch can be done if your suppression fire is not totally effective.

How does this apply to a hasty attack? A hasty attack will usually take place after a surprise contact when your element has been 'advancing to contact'. It may also take place when you are hit on a patrol. Depending on your patrol orders/SOPs you will either conduct immediate action break contact drills or you will be in an offensive mission mode. Even if you are in an offensive mode you will still go through immediate action contact/battle drills to take cover and return fire, locate the enemy and begin to suppress. The difference here between a deliberate and hasty attack is that with the latter the enemy has the initiative and has opened fire on you at a point of their choosing. You are therefore in their killing area (the X) and you must seize back the initiative and prosecute an assault with speed, aggression and surprise.

(I am not going to bog down in the difference in U.S. Army doctrine between 'near' and 'far' ambush. In simple terms, a near ambush is within grenade range (30 yards) and the suggested reaction for a near ambush is a standard immediate action drill for the closest team to assault onto the enemy. The far ambush should be taken care of as I describe below. I disagree in general terms about this immediate reaction to a near ambush simply determined based on distance. If the team leader under contact decides to assault immediately, then so be it and he must be supported as much as possible. However 30 yards is a long way under fire and still depends a lot on the ground. The contacted team may well be pinned down with casualties. If possible always try and bring an element, the rear team, to a flank to either assault or at least support by fire).

This means that after initial contact and everyone having done their individual react to contact drills, the squad leader for the element that comes under contact will most likely maneuver his element off the immediate X into a better position to begin to win the firefight with the enemy. This will be done by basic fire and movement, either forwards, to the flank, or rearward, into better position of cover and concealment. This could be a single squad/element or it could be one element of a larger force, such as a platoon. The squad leader that came under contact, if part of a larger force, will make a decision, based on his assessment of enemy location and strength, to either put in a hasty squad attack or defer to the platoon leader if the enemy is too strong. If he hands it over to the platoon leader, he may well become the fire support squad, or the platoon leader may move elements around into better positions, supporting each by fire to do so. It's another spatial/mechanical action.

If you are a squad leader who has come under fire and moved off the X or at least into better cover, and you are contemplating a hasty attack, you will hand over the control of the firefight to your second in command and conduct a quick combat estimate. This is where you are looking at the spatial combination of enemy/ground. as it relates to the enemy position, your position and the ground in between. It is vital at this point to observe as best as you can and identify enemy positions, numbers and firepower.

You are looking for:

- A fire support location. In a hasty attack that is often simply leaving a team in support where you are right now. If you have to put a team into a better location, then that will be conducted by fire and movement in a series of preliminary moves to get them where you need them.

- A covered approach to a flank. Concealed if not covered. 

- A forming up position (FUP) & line of departure (LD).

- A sequence of assault onto the enemy objective. For a squad, you are only really going to be assaulting with one team and thus onto a single enemy fighting position/trench/bunker.

When assessing the ground, it is helpful to divide it into left, center and right. Center is not usually a good idea unless very close to the enemy. Best to go either left or right flanking. So you are effectively looking for a left or right flanking approach. Decide on the best one depending on your assessment of the various factors. Once you decide, go with it. There may be a couple of options to a flank, such as far left and near left. Decide on the best one as it relates to the spatial problem.

As you plan to take your assault team left or right flanking, you will also need to consider the need for further suppression of the enemy as you get closer, using one of your buddy pairs in the assault team to either be a 'point of fire' to provide closer suppression on the enemy as you approach from the flank, or to be a point of fire as outward looking flank protection, facing out to cover any depth or mutually supporting enemy positions. Remember flank protection as you move through that covered route - you may run into another enemy position, which was holding its fire in anticipation of your move or simply out of sector for your initial contact location, and in that case you may want to reconsider the odds. It may already be too late and you are committed to following the fight through to its conclusion. 'Finish the fight!'

If you are assaulting enemy in the open you will usually simply fight through in a skirmish line by fire and movement in buddy teams. If you are assaulting a fighting position such as a trench or bunker, then you may use the point of fire method to drop off one buddy pair as intimate fire support and assault with a buddy pair. 

If you have to use a point of fire to screen off a depth position that you came across in the assault, then once you have taken care of the initial position, continue to suppress the depth. Then, bring in the team that you used as fire support and have them assault the depth. That is one way to skin the cat.

When you have cleared the enemy position, you will need to have your fire support team join you. Potentially you will be send them through to destroy that depth position your point of fire was suppressing, but assuming you are not they will rejoin you on the enemy objective. The way to do this has changed - it used to be that they would follow the route you took, all the way to the flank, on the basis that you just came up there and so it should be clear of booby traps and further enemy etc. Modern thinking says they can just take the shortest route. Make your own mind up what is best for you.

Obstacles are something that you must consider when planning your flanking approach - are there any and how do they affect that approach? Wire, concertina wire, walls, fences, buildings, ditches, creeks, rivers etc are all things that may make you decide against one route and for another. Punji pits - can you even identify/see them before you are on them? Maybe even other booby traps such as mines and IEDs.

Once on the enemy position, you also need to consider the ground where you are at as you conduct your reorganization post-assault. Are you best where you are or do you need to move to a better defended or covered position? Is there a danger of counter-attack or even indirect fire? If so, get into a defended covered position and even start digging. Often it is best to get off and away from the objective as soon as possible to avoid retaliation.

Another thing related to the direction of your assault and the lay of the land is what options are you giving the enemy? Will you trap them and force them to fight or do you give them a route to withdraw on? What do you intend - kill, capture, just seize the ground, or destroy them all? This also applies to a raid or deliberate attack where you may leave the enemy 'open door' opportunities to escape or you may deliberately place cut-off groups along egress routes to kill/capture any escaping enemy. If you do put such groups out, just like cut-off groups in an ambush you must use terrain to screen them from your direct fire as you conduct the assault, as they will likely be positioned 'downrange ' from your assault.

Live hard, die free.

MV

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here for all your prepping/tactical needs: The Tactical Patriot Store

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sick and tired of political correctness

Sorry, but this is my rant about being sick and tired of having to watch everything I say, so I do not offend anyone.

Since when did the 1st Amendment say that we only have the freedom of speech if we are not offending anyone? I have not read that anywhere in the Constitution. I think that we should be able to say what we want to, and have the backing of the 1st Amendment.

In this country today the Constitution is about worthless, it has been trampled on, ignored, and mocked. WAKE UP PEOPLE! these are our rights. What is it going to take for people to stand up and do something about defending the Constitution?

I am so sick of how the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Bible are looked upon as things we cannot talk about, or discuss. Why can we not talk about religion, but people can talk about their homosexual lovers? Why is it that when people talk about how our liberties are being trampled that people do not get it, they ask you what you mean. Seriously? People are so asleep in this country it is sad.

This is the time to be AWAKE people, if you are, spread the word, educate your friends, co-workers, etc... Oh, yeah I forgot you probably cannot talk about those things at work, because our Bill of Rights is SO controversial... lol No really, it is sad, we cannot talk about things the way we want to, we cannot say things on the phone in fear that black SUVs will pull up in our driveways with DHS storm troopers piling out of them.

We are in a Totalitarian Police State because people are so concerned with security, but do not give a crap about the rights they are giving up to achieve a level of security. What is worth more to you, security, or freedom. The government can make you safe... you will not have any rights, freedoms, or privacy, you will be secure, but you will no longer be FREE.

I for one am not willing to give up the principals that made our nation great just to be more secure.

I want to feel free to say what I want, to stand up for what is right, to be part of the solution, not the problem, I am a Sheep Dog, and will continue to fight the good fight!

What to wear in a post event world

So the SHTF, you are part of the resistance, or you just want to survive. Should you wear camo, or civilian clothes? Well, this depends on how and what has happened, it depends on whether you are still integrated into society, or you are part of a group that heads for the hills and is part of an active resistance movement.

I feel that it is a personal choice, and one that you would be changing due to mission parameters, and the local atmosphere. If resistance groups are being hunted and fought by a professional force, then you have the option of using camo to increase your survivability in an active combat environment. But if you still desire to be part of society, then you would need to tailor your kit to take that into account.

One way you could go is to wear civilian work clothes in muted natural colors, then wear your kit over them. This way you could fight the fight, but then if need be ditch your gear and just walk down the street and fit in. Another option for this scenario is to wear what I call "Redneck Camo" which is any of the commercially available patterns that hunters wear. This type of clothing is effective in the woods, but also acceptable by society in many areas. If you were walking down the street in this type of camo, not many people would even give you a second glance.

So the options as I see it are: military camos, redneck camos, or muted civilian clothes. The way to go about this that I see as the most effective is to wear browns and greens in civilian style clothes (not tactical clothes) then wear a gillie suit or shroud and your kit when you are in the crap, or in an active combat situation. This approach gives you the ability to be effective in the fight, but then to ditch your kit and gillie, then just walk down the street for your exfiltration (exfil).

Another aspect of this debate is that if you and your group have a uniform standard and maybe a unit patch you will build esprit de corps, or pride in your unit, this is all good and fine pre-event, but when you are engaged as a fighting force living is the best morale builder. Another way to look at it is the ability to recognize your guys so you do not have any friendly fire incidents, well come on, if you are in a situation and you do not know the location of all of your buddies, then you should have had more training. We are not talking about large groups of soldiers with guys spread out all over the place. One of the good things about having a small unit is that you will be set up in a coordinated well planned ambush type of fight. If you are not, then you need to get the hell out of there as fast as you can.

I am not going to get into what is the best camo pattern, this battle is like the timely debate of AR vs AK, there is no right answer, just your personal preference. What I will say is that it is a good idea to not be wearing the same pattern that the forces you are fighting is wearing. I say this because of what I mentioned above about the ability to differentiate your guys from the enemy.

What you wear also depends on what you can afford and what you already have. If you can afford it, get the best stuff you can, but do not take money from your ammo, weapon, or survival gear budget. I feel that this should be the last priority, put your money into good gear, mags, ammo, good quality firearms, food, water, medical supplies and such. You can fight in whatever if you have to, but you could have the fanciest camo uniform and crappy gear and you will fail when your gear does, or when you do not have an item you need because you spent your money on the latest camo instead of where you should have spent it.

Remember you are a guerrilla style fighter, you hit hard, hit fast, and get the hell out of there. You are like a shadow in the mist, you confuse, instill terror, and break the enemy force down over time. You do not engage in full scale battles, you prefer small, planned, short duration fights that you pick the parameters of.

With that said, think about what is really important to you, set up your clothing, kit and weapons for realistic scenarios, be smart, think about the way that things will do down. Maybe you should have one of each of these types of clothing and then determine which ones you will employ based on the type of mission you will be conducting.

Remember to stay strong, keep up the fight, and never give up!

Body Armor / Plate Carriers

By: Max Velocity

I am a fan of body armor. In any kind of 'kinetic' situation when receiving incoming small arms fire, it will significantly reduce the chances of sustaining a penetrating wound to the torso. Such wounds are often not survivable. 

In basic terms, you have the 'soft armor' portion and the 'plates" that insert front and rear. If you have a plate carrier, you only use the plates. This gives you less protection than if you include the soft armor, but the soft armor does not protect against high velocity (rifle) rounds.

So it is a balance, between levels of protection, weight, bulk, and heat retention. The levels of protection are:

Soft Armor:

Type IIA (9 mm; .40 S&W)
Type II (9 mm; .357 Magnum)
Type IIIA (.357 SIG; .44 Magnum)

Plates:
Type III (Rifles)
Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle)

The calibers listed are the rounds that this level will protect up to, inclusive of lesser calibers.

Personally, I have a set that I had for working in the Middle East. It was a 'low profile' set that still had front and rear plates. The soft armor portion is level IIIA and the plates are level III. You don't actually need level IV plates, unless you feel the need to protect against armor piercing rounds. Military armor has level IV plates. 

This set of body armor simply came in a soft cover, no pouches attached. It meant that I could wear it under a shirt, or more operationally I used to wear my gear over the top of it, depending on the low or high profile nature of the mission.

What I have now, on the civilian side, is a battle belt, an assortment of 'low profile' 'man bags' that can carry magazines, and I have taken the soft armor and plates out of the cover and put them into a plate carrier that I bought online. It mirrors the military gear I used to wear. So it is no longer low profile, unless I replace the armor in the original soft cover. I have a full tactical vest set up. If I wanted to go low profile, I can replace the armor in the soft cover, wear it under a shirt, and carry a 'man bag' with spare magazines in. With the tactical vest, you can get ones that take soft armor (level IIIA stops powerful handgun/shrapnel) and/or plates. So you can get a plate carrier, or a full set with soft armor. A simple plate carrier will be lighter and cooler, but offers less protection. The soft armor gives you greater protection, just not against high velocity rounds.

So what? Decide what sort of rig you are looking to set up. Research the NIJ levels that you want. You can buy the stuff in a civilian style soft cover and put it into a tactical vest if you want. You definitely want the plates, and you need to decide if you also want the soft armor too.

Body armor can be heavy, hot and sweaty. If you have a 'MOLLE' style tactical cover you can set up a full tactical vest by attaching ammo pouches and the like to the body armor cover. This makes it heavier, but it allows you to carry your gear. If you are contemplating being involved in any kind of tactical kinetic situations, you need to get over the whole hot, heavy and sweaty thing. Suck it up and drive on. Do more PT/drink more water. You will benefit from the protection and you need to carry your ammo and IFAK anyway, plus ancillary gear.

If you are working in the heat, and you want to compromise, use a plate carrier. This gives you the same high velocity rifle round protection but without the greater soft armor torso coverage that will protect against handgun rounds and shrapnel.

Don't go the other way and simply wear the soft armor, like cops do under their shirts. This provides protection against handgun rounds and some can be anti-stab vests also. But there is no protection from high velocity rifle rounds. You can still wear a set with plates under a shirt if you need to be a little more low profile, for instance if driving through a hostile environment trying to remain low key.

And there we have my two cents on body armor....

Velocity, Max. "Body Armor / Plate Carriers ." Max Velocity Tactical.

Blogger, 28 Nov 2012. Web. 4 Jun 2013. <http://maxvelocitytactical.

blogspot.com/2012/11/body-armor-plate-carriers.html>.

Suppressive Fire For the Irregular War-Fighter

Well-executed suppressive fire is, arguably, THE critical task in an effective contact. The maneuver element cannot move to, or exit, their covered approach route until/unless enemy weapons can be destroyed, or effectively disabled. EFFECTIVE SUPPRESSIVE FIRE IS A PRE-REQUISITE FOR ASSAULT, OR ANY OTHER MANUEVER!!!

The reality is, conventional military forces are not historically trained in direct-fire suppression, using their personal small arms. Whether at the fire-team/stick level, or the platoon or company echelons, this is unfortunate, because well-trained riflemen, using semi-automatic, aimed fire can actually suppress the enemy more effectively than automatic weapons such as crew-served machine guns (John Poole cites a couple of different studies illustrating this in The Last 100 Yards).

In order to counter this, for the irregular war-fighter, we have to first define exactly what “suppressive fire” is. In my mind, based on my personal experiences, a belt-fed M240 hosing down the objective is decidedly NOT suppressive fire. Between the limitations of reality, with non-combatants possibly on the objective, or down-range from the objective, to the fact that, too often, the gun crew hosing down the objective is doing more property damage than personnel damage, it’s just not very effective. This becomes more important, both to the irregular war-fighter, and the conventional force small-unit leader, when you consider the political implications of blindly firing into an objective that may have significant numbers of non-combatants present. I define suppressive fire quite simply, as “suppressive fire is fire that keeps the enemy more concerned with not being shot than he is with shooting at you.” In other words, suppressive fire is protection…cover. To me, that means well-directed fire, aimed at the enemy, rather than the objective. As I like to point out during classes, “the best cover on the battlefield is accurate, outgoing fire.”

Tactically speaking, to be most effective, at a minimum, half your element should be providing accurate, precision suppressive fire. Ideally, it should be more like 2/3 to 3/4 of the element firing, as the maneuver element moves. In his classic work “Infantry Attacks,” Erwin Rommel (arguably, one of the finest tactical thinkers in the history of warfare, and certainly in the last century) describes a number of attacks he led as a young lieutenant in World War One. His assault element was always notably smaller than his suppression element, and the disparity grew as his experience increased. The key however, was that his suppressive fire elements always had their fires directed at SPECIFIC enemy positions on the target. Control and direction of organic fires is certainly one of the most critical key leader tasks, if not THE most critical. You need to know how to direct your subordinates’ fires, as well as where to direct those fires.

Because conventional doctrine focuses on the use of indirect-fire and crew-served weapons for suppression (and don’t misunderstand, I’m a BIG fan of mortars. I absolutely love wreaking havoc and discontent with a 60mm mortar in the “knee mortar” role), there is little to no doctrine defining training and application standards for direct-fire suppression with individual small-arms. The classic, British model of 30 rounds per minute is certainly a valid starting point, but is only a starting point. Suppressive fire at 400 meters, to be effectively accurate, may not be any more rapid than one round every two seconds, but at half that distance, it might be twice as rapid, or even faster. It’s METT-TC dependent (I can make solid, upper torso hits all day long at 200M at a firing rate of one round/second, without even trying, and I make no claims to being any Alvin York…any competent shooter should be able to do so). At 50M, you might need to fire 2-3 accurate rounds per second, in order to be effective in keeping their heads down.

How do we control subordinate element suppressive fires, in order to prevent fratricide, while still ensuring adequate rounds downrange?

Controlling the rate and distribution of fires involves communicating when to start firing, where (general area as well as specific targets) to fire, and at what rate to fire (It’s critical to note that, while it’s a leader task, techniques for controlling team fires depends on collective training of the entire team). There are various ways to control organic fires at the fire team/stick level. The noise and confusion inherent in a real gunfight may limit the effective use of some of these. You have to possess the ability to utilize whichever method is effective and feasible, based on the immediate situation. Don’t get tied to just one.

The first method, and most obvious, is verbal control. This is arguably, the best method, except when the leader is too far away from his men, or the roar of battle limits their ability to hear his commands (the use of electronic hearing protection, such as Peltors, and/or intra-team radios MAY mitigate these limitations to some degree).

Hand-and-Arm signals are of some value in the midst of the fight, since they are not limited by noise. There are two major drawbacks to hand-and-arm signals, in my experience. First of all, subordinates may miss seeing the signal, as they focus on the enemy and their own rifle sights. Second, too often guys try to use hand-and-arm signals because they’re trying to be stealthy and not give away information to the enemy. The reality is, once the gunfire starts, the enemy knows you’re there. Quit worrying about surprise/stealth, and focus on aggressive violence-of-action.

Leading by Example should always be the first choice of good tactical leaders. This is the most common and typically the most effective method of initiating and directing fires. It is not restricted by noise, and if the subordinate can see you, he knows where you are firing. Then they mimic him, by shooting in the same direction he is firing, at the same rate he is firing. Team Leaders should use tracers to help direct their subordinates’ fire to specific target areas (or an IR designator at night, if all team members are equipped with NODs). The target zone can quickly be marked by the TL first firing at the center of the target area, then at the left and right limits of fire. This method, accompanied by the TL then moving to individual riflemen and specifically guiding their fire, is my personal “go-to” method, and the one I generally teach. It does require moral and physical courage from the TL, because he has to get up and move, even under enemy fire. If you lack moral and physical courage however, you’re probably not team leader material anyway.

The final method of controlling fires can be a pre-arranged event. Subordinates can simply be told to start firing when the approaching enemy reaches a certain terrain feature. I personally despise this method. In my experience, it leads to a ragged initial burst as every individual has a different perspective on what constitutes “crossing the line” (wow, there could be a LOT of unintended meaning read into that. There was no political intent in that statement. I promise.).

Well dispersed, accurately distributed suppressive fires are the best way to get inside the enemy’s OODA loop and stay there, by ensuring that accurate fire covers all parts of the target area. A team SOP may call for one buddy team to cover the left side of the objective, while the other buddy team covers the right, until specifically instructed to direct their fires elsewhere by the TL.

Ultimately, the maximum effectiveness of suppressive fires can be most positively ensured by prioritizing known, suspected, or likely positions of enemy cover/concealment.

a) Engage any exposed enemy personnel (specifically targeting, in order, crew-served weapons, grenadiers, communications personnel, then key leaders. In other words…the most immediately threatening, most casualty-producing weapons, then working your way down the threat matrix.), followed by positions indicated by enemy muzzle flashes (if you can see his muzzle flashes, it’s a pretty good indication that he’s firing in your direction, and thus a pretty immediate threat…).

b) Once all KNOWN positions have been engaged effectively, work on suspected positions. These may include edges of doors and windows (why the fuck would you bother shooting into the middle of an open door…?), the top front edge of fighting positions, both sides of the bases of trees, stumps, and rocks, etc….anywhere you’d be hiding if you were in the enemy’s position.

c) Finally, target fire at any LIKELY positions of enemy cover/concealment you haven’t already engaged in your specified sector of fire. This may include the ridge of a building rooftop, next to chimneys/smokestacks, bushes that may be concealing enemy combatants, etc.

There are a couple of things to consider, from the irregular/guerrilla view, of engaging suspected and likely positions of enemy cover/concealment…first of all, if you can’t see the enemy there, you don’t have a specific target. Instead of just one round, it is more effective to fire two or three quick rounds into the space a bad guy would be in if he was there, whether you see him or not. The inherent dispersion of these rounds means you’ve got a better chance of hitting him if he IS there.

Second, and arguably more critical, is the realization that if it’s a good hiding spot, but no one is actively shooting at you from there, doesn’t mean there’s not someone there, they just may not be a bad guy. If I were stuck in the middle of a gunfight that I wasn’t part of, and didn’t have a firearm (yeah, right……), I’d damned sure find a position of cover until I could determine the safest egress route. For the irregular war-fighter, this consideration means you may have to limit your subordinates’ fires to KNOWN positions of enemy cover. If they’re not shooting at you, or your buddies, you don’t get to shoot back. Fortunately for me, that would ultimately be a local concern to deal with, so I don’t have to prescribe a set of guidance…

The rate-of-fire should be directed by the team leader and needs to be high enough to prevent the enemy from returning fire accurately. That having been said, there is one caveat. The initial rate-of-fire, in an unexpected, surprise contact, should be as fast as humanly possible, while still placing accurate, aimed fire at those known, likely, or suspected positions of enemy cover/concealment. As soon as the first magazine is expended, perform a speed reload, then resume fire at a slightly reduced rate of fire (mimicking the TL’s rate-of-fire, or following his specific instructions), in order to keep the enemy from being able to respond effectively.

Deception Operations

Each Deception operation consists of five components:

• Objective
• Enemy Assumptions
• Method Selection and Operational Options
• Execution
• Exploitation

Objective

As with actual military operations, false military operations must have a clear objective. What are you trying to get the enemy to believe? What do you want him to not believe? Do you intend to draw his forces away? The more detail that goes into planning and understanding the objective, the easier the implementation will be.

Enemy Assumptions

People are hungry for information, especially war planners. Feed them a careful diet. You must be careful to understand what they already believe and feed those prejudices. If, for example, your enemy believes you will conduct a blitzkrieg assault across the narrowest part of the English Channel, create a force located in Dover and make its commander your general best known for that tactic: George S. Patton, III. For extra flair points, the Allies could have made the First US Army Group a real force with real men, instead of an entirely fictional force, and used that as the reserve force for Normandy. Let the enemy believe what they want to believe.

Method Selection and Operational Options
AmMerc does a quick job of covering the basics of this, and I won’t repeat those here. Instead I’ll make two observations. First, a deception operation is generally more successful if there is more evidence (read: more methods utilized) to convince the enemy of what you want him to believe. To that end, don’t focus on using just one method; instead use several. Second, whatever method you choose must be accessible to the enemy. The cadaver loaded with false plans would have done the allies no good if the Germans hadn’t found it. Likewise, the press reports in 1991 detailing Marine rehearsals for an amphibious landing would have done no good if Saddam Hussein had no TV tuned to CNN.

Execution

This is where the rubber hits the road, or the metal meets the meat. Execution of the deception operation must be believable in order to be believed. For example, suppose your enemy sees your deception force assembling to his right. If he observes that there is no logistics train supporting it, he could correctly conclude that you’re trying to deceive him. Likewise, if a deception force is too obviously exposed, with no effort at camouflage, it is not likely to be believed.

Exploitation
The primary purpose of deception operations is to get the enemy to continue believing in the deception even after you’ve launched your actual operation. This is difficult, since it requires everything to break your way, including the enemy’s stupidity. But if it can be achieved, it becomes a force multiplier for you, since you now have two things working on the enemy’s OODA loop – your actual operation and your deception operation.

Counterdeceptions

The difficult trick in running a deception operation is detecting the enemy’s own deception operations. If you can’t tell when the enemy is deceiving you, you can’t really tell if your deception operation is working or not, because you can’t tell if he sees your deception and is playing along or is actually being deceived.

Conclusions

Walter Scott was right: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive!” The right metaphor from nature for a deception operation is a web, but it is the web of a black widow – tangled, without order, confusing, with no definite center, as contrasted with the orderly spirals most people think of. You must remember that deceptions are equal parts psychology and salesmanship: know your customer and know what will make him come around to your point of view. A deception is only a supporting operation, but a critical one, for it plays to the fears the enemy manifests while the actual operation works towards his vulnerabilities. Neglect neither and you will master both.

This post is for informational and educational purposes only

The Tactical Patriot online store

Hey readers, I just wanted to put a shout out for our new online store. There is tons of stuff here that will get you to where you want to be with your preparations.

The Tactical Patriot

Check it out, I know you will find something you can't live without. :)

EQUIPPING THE GUERRILLA FIGHTER, PART ONE (The Survival Load)

The guerrilla fighter is a true light-infantryman in the classical sense of the term. He is essentially, a woodsman-scout. The guerrilla operates in a manner that emphasizes the expert use of his personal small-arms, the use of stealth in all of his movements, using the available terrain and cover to counter the supposed technological advantages possessed by regime forces, and an expert grasp of the fundamentals of small-unit, “hit-and-run” maneuver warfare.

 

The guerrilla possesses the trained ability to operate day and night, over varied, broken terrain, using his field-craft expertise and whatever technological assets are available to him, to escape enemy observation until he chooses to attack. When he moves, the guerrilla moves from one position of concealment to the next. He strives to utilize appropriate movement techniques to maximize the value of masking terrain. When not changing positions, the guerrilla remains motionless and hidden from observation by regime forces that may possess the most advanced STANO (Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Night Observation) tools available. Like his woodsman-scout forebears, the guerrilla carries only the necessities to ensure his survival and combat effectiveness. Additional, unnecessary weight leads to excessive, accelerated fatigue, impedes and slows movement, and leads to a compromising over-reliance on the technology represented by the equipment, rather than his native wit and skill in field-craft.

The light-infantry paradigm is not found in Stryker Armored Fighting Vehicles, or even HUMVEE-mounted convoys to a disembarkation point two kilometers from an objective (although both of these certainly possess value in their own right). The light-infantry paradigm is found in field-craft, mobility, tactical expertise, and marksmanship. The ability to sneak inside the enemy’s reactionary gap un-noticed, strike with overwhelming violence-of-action at his weakest points, and then disappear into the surrounding environment before a reaction force can be mustered, is the key to interrupting the enemy’s OODA loop. This “hit-and-run” ability is the chief tactical advantage available to the irregular, small-unit force.

 

Conventional force militaries no longer possess a true light-infantry capability. The fundamental problem, over-burdening foot-mobile infantry soldiers has existed nearly as long as armies have existed. The modern development of advanced technological war-fighting assets has exacerbated the problem rather than remedying it. Despite the best efforts of military logisticians and theorists, the load of infantry forces has continued to increase. The modern, conventional-force “light” infantryman is often required to carry loads far in excess of 120 pounds, even when operating in difficult, broken, and steep terrain such as the alpine environment of the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan.

The load of infantry forces has been a subject of intense study since the 1700s, and is still a problem that has never been resolved. Technological advancements in weapons, STANO, communications, and personal protective equipment have added to the soldier’s load. This has only been partially mitigated by advancements in load-bearing technologies and attempts at miniaturization.

 

According to an unidentified infantry first sergeant of the 187^th Infantry Regiment (“Rakkasans”) of the 101^st Airborne Division, concerning load-bearing during Operation Anaconda during 2002,

“We had extreme difficulty moving with all of our weight. If your movement would have been to relieve a unit in contact or a time-sensitive mission we would not have been able to move in a timely manner. It took us 8 hours to move 5 klicks. With just the vest (Interceptor Body Armor vest) and LBV, we were easily carrying 80 pounds. Throw on the ruck and you’re sucking.”

 

Studies conducted by the United States Army following World War Two found that the average infantry rifleman had carried approximately 55 pounds during movements in the field. These studies concluded that this was the maximum weight for an approach-march load that would still allow the fighter to fight effectively when he got to the fight. A decade later, a follow-on study determined that this still applied, but allowed for a maximum 48 pound fighting load in actual combat, if carried by a conditioned fighting soldier.

 

The fighting load is doctrinally defined as the actual load carried by a soldier during combat. The approach-march load, on the other hand, is the load carried by the soldier in order to get to the fight. It includes the necessary equipment to survive until he gets to the objective.

Despite the advances made as a result of these studies, by 2003, soldiers engaged in dismounted combat operations in the mountains of Afghanistan were carrying a 60-80 pound fighting load and an approach-march load that was often (during true dismounted operations, rather than vehicle-based patrols) in excess of 130 pounds. The heaviest loads, typically carried by M240 assistant machine-gunners, were often in excess of 150 pounds. These figures, it is important to remember, are the doctrinal loads, and do not include the almost inevitable inclusion of personal items by individual soldiers.

 

As the previous quote from the Rakkasan first sergeant illustrates, today’s conventional-force light-infantry soldier simply cannot move fast with his doctrinal load. Additionally, these loads were developed based on a regular re-supply via rotary-wing aircraft or ground-vehicle convoy every 48-72 hours.

The guerrilla fighter will not have these support assets. He will be forced to live out of his rucksack almost exclusively, with his re-supply provided by previously established caches hidden throughout the operational area. The guerrilla light-infantryman must overcome these liabilities. The ability to function as a woodsman-scout will be absolutely crucial to the survivability of the guerrilla fighter.

 

The survival load/fighting load/sustainment load model is a useful framework for the logistics planning of the future guerrilla. The surest way for the guerrilla to maximize his ability to apply his light-infantry capabilities is to minimize his load-bearing requirements while utilizing re-supply caches and safe-houses throughout the operational area.

The survival load is the items that the individual warfighter carries on his person, either in hand, in his pockets, or on his belt, but not attached to the fighting load-bearing equipment. The concept behind the survival load is that it will allow the operator to escape and evade hostile pursuit and survive indefinitely, if not comfortably, long enough to return to the control of friendly forces. For the guerrilla fighter, this is the perfect goal for the survival load. While the guerrilla is unlikely to conduct combat operations without the benefit of his fighting and survival loads, there are numerous reasons that he may need to have mastered the survival load concept. Whether conducting a clandestine infiltration of denied, regime-controlled territory to conduct an operation, or simply the need to dump all of his personal gear in order to run faster while trying to escape an overwhelming enemy force while breaking contact, the guerrilla must develop and carry a survival load that takes into account his personal field-craft and knowledge.

 

Too often, even among survival “experts,” the solution to the survival load idea is misinterpreted as a hardware issue. The trend to rely on a survival “kit” is not the answer. The guerrilla fighter should never rely on the “Altoids can survival kit.” Instead, the focus should be on the effective use of the tools he would normally carry on his person, facilitated by proper field-craft and survival knowledge. As in everything for the guerrilla, software trumps hardware.

At its fundamental level, the survival load consists of:

 

·         Sidearm. In extreme evasion scenarios, or covert operations conducted in regime-controlled built-up areas, this will function as your primary arm. The primary attributes necessary are that it be utterly, unfailingly reliable, and readily concealable. Because of its role as a personal defense weapon, perhaps in direct-action combat missions, as opposed to simple self-defense against one or two hostiles, a magazine-fed, high-capacity semi-automatic pistol is the ideal choice.

·         Knife. This is a field-utility knife. While the possibility of its use as a combative weapon should not be overlooked, this knife is far more likely to be used for fire-building, shelter and hide-site construction, and the manufacture of traps and snares under survival conditions than it is to be used for silencing enemy sentries by stabbing them in the throat. While a fixed-blade knife may be the ideal, a stout folding knife, kept suitably sharp, more than adequately fills this role, while simultaneously being eminently more concealable (in the interest of intellectual honesty, I feel obligated to note that I carry a Cold Steel push-dagger for an EDC knife, and generally have no fewer than three folding knives on my person at any given time. As a team sergeant once pointed out to me, “Sergeant Mosby, a man can just never have too many knives on his-self!” My Victorinox Swiss Army knife probably gets more daily use than any other tool I own, of any sort. –J.M. Additional Note: I’ve since dispensed with carrying the push-dagger.–J.M.)

 

·         Sun/Safety Glasses. In the mid-1990s, the Ranger Regiment issued Ray-Ban sunglasses as part of a new Ranger’s central supply issue. Nevertheless, Rangers were not allowed to wear them, because it was considered non-uniform (WTFO? I never did understand that. –J.M.). Today, thanks to the advances developed by operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of safety lenses is generally accepted as mandatory. Polarized, tinted lenses during daylight, with ANSI Z87 safety ratings will increase visual clarity, reduce eye strain and fatigue, and protect the war-fighter’s eyes from battlefield debris and some shrapnel. The two most popular manufacturers of “tactical” sunglasses are Oakley and Wiley X, but any tinted safety glasses will suffice, and may look far less conspicuous than the latest cool-guy, CDI selections from U.S. Cavalry (again, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I have to admit, I wear Oakleys for work, and Wiley X for daily wear. –J.M.)

·         Cordage. Cordage is, rightly, considered a critical tool in the survivor’s tool kit. The simple truth is, there is no such thing as too much cordage in a survival situation. Many long-range surveillance units (LRSU, the operational descendants of the older LRRPs) and some ODAs, make it part of their standard operating procedure (SOP) to replace the laces in their field boots with 550 cord. It’s out of the way, readily accessible, and the operator is never without the requisite material to construct field-expedient shelters, snares, fishing lines and nets, and even poncho rafts for water-crossing operations (to this day, every pair of boots I own has had the laces replaced with 550 cord. –J.M.).

 

·         Compass. While the woodsman-scout background of the guerrilla light-infantryman means the fighter should possess the ability to determine directions, at least roughly, without a compass, he should rarely, if ever, be without a compass. The ability to reliably traverse terrain that the enemy considers impenetrable is the strength of the guerrilla. Possessing a compass, whether a standard orienteering compass on a lanyard around the neck, or a simple button compass on a watchband, should be considered a necessity for the guerrilla, as part of his ability to escape and evade when needed.

·         Fire Starter. This may be a simple waterproof match-safe stuffed with weather-proofed “hurricane-lifeboat” matches, a flint striker, or a flint-and-steel kit. The serious survival expert will never allow himself to be caught without some means that he can use reliably, to build a warming fire to stay alive.

 

·         Water Purification. The final aspect of the survival load that can never be overlooked is the ability to procure or manufacture safe drinking water. Historically, evaders have suffered horribly from dysentery after being forced by necessity, to drink stagnant, putrid water infested with bacteria. It is critical that the guerrilla devise a method of purifying water on the run in an evasion scenario. With the prevalence of store-bought bottled drinking water, soda, and sports drink, the guerrilla should always be able to find a receptacle to carry his water, as long as he can purify it to make it safe for drinking. Whether a small container of iodine tablets, a filter straw, or a pocket-sized, “standard” water purifier, it is critical to possess safe, clean drinking water to stay alive, healthy, and effective ( I use a product called “ION Stabilized Oxygen” for water purification. I’ve used it all over the world, purifying water from stock tanks and ditches, without ever getting ill. It’s smaller, lighter, and more effective than any micro-filter I’ve ever seen or used, and I can keep a bottle in the pocket of my jeans without noticing it).

Different experts on survival will recommend different elements to add to the “survival load.” When considering it as part of a layered, tiered approach to guerrilla equipment however, a minimalist approach, reinforced by proper field-craft training and survival knowledge, will more than adequately provide the essentials needed to keep the guerrilla fighter alive during escape and evasion scenarios in the remote chance that he has to ditch his fighting and sustainment loads, or is compromised and forced to E&E during covert operations in denied territory that precludes the carry and use of the normal fighting load.

Part Two of this article will discuss the layout of the guerrilla fighting load, with Part Three covering the sustainment load. The final installment, Part Four, will discuss strategies for the construction and use of re-supply caches.

Nous Defions!

John Mosby

Somewhere in the mountains

EQUIPPING THE GUERRILLA FIGHTER, PART TWO (The Fighting Load)

(In the previous installment of this article, we discussed the implementation of a 1^st line “survival load” for the guerrilla fighter. The overwhelming theme was, and should be, to minimize the amount of weight and equipment that the guerrilla carries to the minimum necessary. In this installment, I will delve deeper on a couple of the items of the survival load that are also de facto parts of the survival load. Further, we will discuss tactical equipment load-out elements of the 2^nd line fighting load-out. –J.M.)

 

(The selection of tactical equipment in preparation for future social unpleasantness must be predicated on some major philosophical constraints. Among these is the recognition that the world and nation we have known is rapidly imploding around us. If this recognition exists, there are some critical issues that must be addressed.

 

The first of these is the degree of seriousness in one’s preparations. If it is simply a hobby, because you enjoy shooting guns, that’s okay. There is certainly nothing wrong with that in a free society. You don’t need to invest any more time or money than you fell like spending. You will get away with airsoft-quality gear and base-level, budget firearms and tools. However, if you genuinely believe that “bad times, they are a-comin’” then you have to look at your preparations in a far more serious light. In this brighter, more intensely focused light, then quality becomes a far more important issue. How much is your life actually worth? How about the life of your children and spouse? What about a successful restoration of the Constitution and the Republic?)

Keeping in mind the previously mentioned importance of maintaining the lightest load possible for the guerrilla fighter to operate in the woodsman-scout model, the foundation of the 2^nd line fighting load-out is the load-bearing equipment (LBE). While it for a guerrilla fighter to toss a spare rifle magazine in his pocket, a bag of lunch and a blanket in a knapsack, and traipse off to war, experiences and battle damage assessments (BDA) conducted in Afghanistan have demonstrated that this is far from an ideal way to go about the business (on numerous occasions, following airstrikes on Taliban/AQ positions, SF ODAs have conducted BDA, and found dead enemy fighters with this very load-out). Such a poorly equipped soldier, regardless of the depth of his religious motivation, is a lousy match for a properly-equipped opponent with good training. While the guerrilla may spend a great deal of time in nothing more than his basic 1^st line “survival load” while in secure areas or performing covert operations in denied areas, whenever possible, when conducting combat operations, the guerrilla should be wearing adequate LBE to complete his mission.

 

With the wide-variety of LBE available on the market currently, how does the concerned citizen or potential future guerrilla fighter determine the type of LBE set-up that might be ideal? Should he copy the equipment used by an infantryman of the 82^nd Airborne Division or the 1^st Marine Division? Perhaps a set-up like that used by a member of the Ranger Regiment or the SEAL teams would be more suitable? Considering the difference in missions, logistics support, and organization of all of these organizations, the argument should be obvious that none of these is an appropriate model for the guerrilla fighter.

The guerrilla fighter must base his load-out on the likely circumstances of his future operations. While it is obvious to most that future guerrilla forces will not possess the logistical support services enjoyed by conventional military forces, it is also important to realize that even many historical guerrilla models will not fit. The potential future American guerrilla cannot expect external support from friendly nation-states, such as enjoyed by the Viet Cong from the North Vietnamese and Chinese, the Iraqi insurgency from Syria and Iran, or that the Afghani resistance forces enjoy from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan via the services of the Pakistani ISI. Even during World War Two, the French Resistance, from whom this blog borrows its title, enjoyed a high level of material, moral, and technical support from the Allied Forces High Command. Instead, the American guerrilla will necessarily be forced to literally, “live off the land,” turning to his friends and neighbors, as well as battlefield recovery, for logistic support.

 

While the utilization of auxiliary support will facilitate the occasional use of vehicles for transportation of both personnel and supplies, the ability of the regime to utilize airborne and space-borne surveillance and reconnaissance assets for vehicle-tracking/pursuit, means that vehicular transport for the guerrilla combat force will, in many cases be extremely limited. The resulting necessary reversion to “primitive” light-infantry foot-mobile travel will act as a limiting factor in the fighting and sustainment load-outs of guerrilla fighters.

For several decades, the standard-issue load-bearing equipment of the United States military’s ground forces was the LC-1 and LC-2 “ALICE” system. Comprised of a wide, thick pistol belt with various equipment pouches and canteens hung off it, this system used a pair of suspenders to help hold the loaded belt around the soldier’s mid-section. The ALICE system was sufficient, if not ideal. Drawbacks included the fact that the ammunition pouches were cumbersome and slow to reload from, the canteens tended to result in occasionally disabling (and always annoying) chafing, and the general reality that the system was neither well-balanced on the soldier’s body, nor ergonomic.

In the middle 1990s, the Army’s Natick Laboratories, in cooperation with elements of the United States Special Operations Command and the U.S. Marine Corps (with the exception of some units in USASOC, the USMC amazingly adopted the MOLLE system before the Army did), began development of a new, modular, lightweight load-bearing system, referred to as MOLLE gear. This new system, and the advances that have been developed since, offered several distinct perceived advantages to the modern war-fighter. With MOLLE gear, equipment-carrying layout can be tailored to the needs of the individual war-fighter, rather than a doctrinal SOP, equipment can be spread more evenly over the fighter’s torso, reducing fatigue, and since it is held closer to the body’s center-of-gravity, the MOLLE gear offers considerably less of a hindrance to combat athleticism.

 

The current ready, inexpensive availability of the older ALICE gear on the military surplus market makes it an obvious, popular choice for many potential future guerrillas, as well as auxiliary support personnel to stockpile for future support of resistance activities. There is nothing wrong with this, but the reality is, for all intents and purposes, some variation of the MOLLE system is an effective leveraging of the currently available technology for the guerrilla to take advantage of.

The foundation of a MOLLE-based 2^nd line fighting load-out comes in one of three basic forms: the plate carrier, the chest harness, and the new, “War Belt” configuration, based loosely on the older ALICE system.

Plate carriers, designed to carry ballistic protection against small-arms direct-fire threats, as well as load-bearing (with a notable exception that will be discussed below), offer one huge advantage over the other two options: they can save the guerrilla’s life by stopping enemy bullets! The use of body armor in current conflicts has saved an untold number of American lives from small-arms fire, as well as shrapnel threats from IEDs and indirect-fire weapons.

For the guerrilla fighter however, there are several mitigating drawbacks to plate carriers that must be considered. First among these is the fact that the weight of body armor may be detrimental to mobility for the foot-mobile guerrilla. While no one who has ever been on a two-way firing range will argue the inherent value of body armor, there are some within the military who have questioned whether some of the lives “saved” by body armor were not in fact, “saved” because they needed to be saved since they couldn’t move fast enough to exit the path of incoming fire.

 

Certainly, the use of a ballistic-protection “outer tactical vest” such as the Interceptor vest, with groin protection, side plates, deltoid protection, and throat guards are best left to vehicle-mounted war-fighters. The weight of these systems and the resulting decrease in mobility is what led to the development of what are now termed “plate carriers,” designed to hold a single plate in front of the vital areas of the torso, and another in the back. Currently, there are plate carrier systems available that, combined with ceramic, multi-hit protection, NIJ Level Three rifle plates, weigh less than 15 pounds (I don’t know about you, but I can run pretty damned fast, even with an extra 15 pounds on if I’m scared enough! –J.M.). The applications of a plate carrier in fighter survivability should certainly be considered when developing the 2^nd line fighting load-out.

Chest harnesses, unlike plate carriers, are simply lightweight panels of nylon with MOLLE/PALS-compatible webbing straps, covering the front of the torso. While the chest harness suffers the obvious drawback of not offering any ballistic protection whatsoever, they do offer increased mobility due to reduced weight. The guerrilla can move much faster and possibly more quietly, with a loaded chest harness on than with the same load attached to, or over a plate carrier. In hot weather, the reduced weight and increased ventilation of the chest harness may be life-saving, due to the reduced risk of heat-related injury or death.

 

One major complaint about the chest harness MOLLE system in the recent past has been constant lower back strain as a result of the load being unbalanced towards the front of the torso. While this is correctly remedied by the addition of a small assault pack or filled hydration bladder on the back, a new model of MOLLE load-bearing gear was developed instead. The “war belt” or “battle belt” system involves the use of a MOLLE-compatible belt system, often (but not necessarily) supported by a set of suspenders with padded shoulder straps. This system has found a great deal of favor in the civilian tactical shooting world, and apparently among some contractors and special operations personnel.

One combination of these systems that has the potential to offer great benefits to the guerrilla fighter in the future is the use of a low-profile plate carrier, with no MOLLE webbing, that can be worn under a baggy sweatshirt or coat, for ballistic protection from rifle threats, with a chest harness that can be quickly donned if necessary, or the addition of a war belt system (while I currently train with a “normal” external plate carrier, and attached pouches for gear, I am seriously contemplating this idea, due to the theoretical ability to utilize the plate carrier, even during covert operations in denied-area, regime-controlled territory, that require no readily visible paramilitary signature. –J.M.).

The final decision of whether a plate carrier, chest harness, war belt, or combination system (or older ALICE system) is most suitable for a particular potential future guerrilla must be based on the needs and preferences of the individual, including physical fitness levels, preferences, perceived future missions, and of course, current budgetary limitations.

Regardless of the final choice of systems, if the guerrilla fighter selects a MOLLE-based system, the next important choice is the selection of a manufacturer. With the current demand for MOLLE-compatible LBE, for the war efforts, law enforcement militarization, and the civilian enthusiast, there are a vast number of companies producing MOLLE gear in one form or another. Unfortunately, this high level of demand also means the cost of quality MOLLE gear is still relatively high, especially when compared to older surplus ALICE gear. While it is possible to procure less expensive imported gear, it is imperative to remember that most of the imported equipment manufactured in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is intended solely for use by the recreational airsoft culture.

 

(While it looks, at first glance, comparable to hard-use gear, relying on equipment intended for a kid’s game in a life-or-death situation is stupid. If the guerrilla chooses the cheapest airsoft gear he can find, and dies because of an equipment failure, I will personally make it a point to laugh at his funeral. Yes, I am an asshole like that! –J.M.)

(Domestic manufacturers of quality tactical MOLLE gear that I have personal experience with include—but are not necessarily limited to:

 

·         Blackhawk Industries. Ironically, although much of their manufacturing now takes places in the PRC, the chest harness I have from them has had the ever-loving dog shit kicked out of it, and is still going strong.

·         Eagle Industries.

·         High-Speed Gear, Incorporated.

·         Special Operations Technologies.

·         Special Operations Equipment.

·         5.11 Gear. Although 5.11 is the least expensive of these manufacturers, I LOVE their gear.

 

 My 1^st line pistol mag pouches are 5.11, as are some of my PC-mounted rifle mag pouches, and my assault pack. Not a single complaint from me.

 

·         TAG/Shellback Tactical. –J.M.)

 

The guerrilla light-infantryman must consider the historical triumvirate of infantry duties: shoot, move, communicate. The necessity for mobility for the woodsman-scout paradigm of the light infantry leads to the oft-quipped line, “Travel light freeze at night.” While used as a self-mocking joke amongst infantrymen in the military, the humor is found in the truth. It is essential that the guerrilla ensure that every piece of gear on his fighting load is focused on the two tasks of shooting (fighting) and communicating.

 

The key phrase of “shooting” is actually intended to cover all of the actual tasks involved in fighting and killing the enemy. Primary among the logistical demands of this is, of course, ammunition for the primary personal small-arm, ideally a rifle. Opinions on how much ammunition the individual war-fighter should carry on his fighting load differs, based on who you ask and what their specific mission experience has been. Some tactical trainers insist that, for the armed citizen, no more than three or four rifle magazines will ever conceivably be needed. Former special operations sergeant-major Kyle Lamb (USA, retired) is an advocate of this approach, even for military special operations. As he explains in his excellent book “Green Eyes, Black Rifles,” three magazines of 30 rounds each, equals 90 rounds. Assuming it takes three rounds per bad guy to nail him to the ground, that still allows for 30 dead guys accounted for by each shooter before he runs out of ammunition. If a person is in THAT serious of a fight, then either he’ll have plenty of buddies around to borrow magazines from, or there will be plenty of rifles and magazines lying around to pick up. There’s quite a lot to be said for that argument, including the fact that such a minimalist load will do a great deal to ensure maximum mobility for the guerrilla light-infantryman.

On the other hand, unlike a military special operations soldier, the guerrilla does not have the option of counting on a regular re-supply of ammunition, nor the ability to readily call for a heli-borne quick-reaction force if help is needed. It is entirely possible, and far from uncommon, for every soldier in an unconventional warfare, small-unit element, such as an ODA, or a LRS team, to run through more than three magazines performing just one “Australian Peel” break-contact maneuver. Additionally, in the event of a contact, it is plausible that, while performing an exfiltration from the immediate battle area, a guerrilla unit could be forced into a further contact with pursuit forces, before having the opportunity to re-supply from a pre-positioned re-supply cache. It should be considered that the U.S. Army doctrinal “basic load” of ammunition, 210 rounds, could serve as a MINIMUM basic load for a guerrilla unit (As a young Ranger, I was blessed to have a squad leader who encouraged us to carry nine magazines on our old ALICE LBE, and one in the rifle. When I was an NCO, as an 18B, my personal rule was to carry 12 full magazines: one in my rifle, one in a “butt-cuff” pouch, and ten on my LBE. My current standard is 10 magazines: one in the rifle, one in a speed-reload pouch on my belt, and eight on my plate carrier or chest harness. All of my magazines are 30-round capacity, and all of my magazines are loaded to full-capacity. I’ve never suffered a malfunction due to the rumored propensity of 30-round M16 magazines to not function reliably with more than 28 in the box. –J.M.). While this certainly adds more weight to the load-out, the reduction in weight from other items that are unnecessary, attenuates this drawback. Considering the probabilities of being out-numbered and pursued by regime forces, it’s unlikely the guerrilla fighter will ever be carrying “too much ammunition.”

 

While a sidearm is considered part of the 1^st line survival load, it should be noted that there are various options for carrying it, once the LBE is added. The obvious method for carry of the sidearm solely as part of the 1^st line load is a concealed carry holster (Appendix, Inside-the-Waistband Glock 19 for me, since I know you were dying to ask, if I haven’t previously mentioned it. –J.M.). Once the guerrilla is carrying a fighting load, on LBE however, the facility of concealed carry holsters is greatly reduced. In these cases, any number of holsters might work, dependent on the preferences of the individual. It should be noted however, that it is important to remember that the sidearm is, ultimately a next-to-last-ditch weapon, followed only by the fighting knife and unarmed combatives. As such, it should remain attached to the individual, not the fighting load LBE (I have favored a drop-leg holster for as long as I’ve been able to carry a sidearm in the field. While some supposed internet “experts” deride these as suitable only for the airsoft crowd and “keyboard commandos,” this is ignorance speaking. Remember that this design was introduced to the world of gunfighting by none other than the British SAS. From the sands of North Africa in World War Two, to the Princess Gate hostage rescue, to the mountains of Afghanistan today, David Stirling’s boys stand second to no one as a fighting unit. The drop-leg holster is not intended to be worn hanging down to your knee like some Hollywood-mythic gunslinger, a la Angelina Jolie in “Tomb Raider.” It should be worn low enough to clear your body armor or LBE, but otherwise, as high as possible on the thigh. In such a position, it is more than adequately comfortable for long-term wear, and is still accessible when needed, as it will be when needed, in a hurry! –J.M.).

 

In addition to rifle ammunition and a sidearm (which is, ultimately, not to be considered any sort of mandatory item for the light-infantryman of any genre. While I would not forego my pistol to save a couple of pounds, there is legitimately, no reason for every war-fighter to “need” a sidearm…unless he feels he needs it), the 2^nd line fighting load-out should include spare ammunition for the sidearm (I keep two spare magazines on my trouser belt as well.—J.M.) and a combat/utility knife.

The combat knife, like the 1^st line survival load-out pocket knife, may very well see its primary usage for general field-craft and utility applications. On the other hand, it is far more likely than the 1^st line knife, to be used in an anti-personnel role, so it should feature more characteristics of a “combat” knife. One perennially popular example among special operators (in my experience –J.M.) is the classic Marine Corps stand-by, the Kabar. Developed during World War Two and in constant service with the Corps since, the Kabar has a well-earned reputation as a general utility knife, as well as an effective fighting weapon (On the other hand, my personal choice is a Cold Steel push-dagger, despite the lack of utility for general field-craft chores. I carry plenty of utility knives. Since I have boxed for over 20 years, the delivery system of the push-dagger makes total sense to me, requires no difference in my combatives training program to use efficiently, and, well…I just like a push-dagger! –J.M.).

 

In addition to the actual weapons-specific fighting gear above, the last critical element of “fighting” gear on the fighting load-out of the guerrilla fighter should be an individual first-aid kit/”blow-out kit.” A serious injury or wound can be the single most mobility-reducing issue to impact the combat effectiveness of a guerrilla fighter. With the development of the military’s Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC or TC3) protocols, first adopted by USSOCOM in 2000, there exists a single, doctrinal methodology for providing battlefield aid to casualties that makes complete sense and takes into account the necessities of actual combat (If you are unfamiliar with these protocols, I suggest you spend some serious time studying and mastering them. They do, and will, save lives in combat! –J.M.). Predicated on actually receiving training in how to perform this protocol of care and wound management (preferably before getting into a firefight), an individual blow-out kit should be based around them. The equipment required is minimal, weighs very little, but will prevent death from most small-arms fire wounds if treated properly and rapidly. The TC3 protocols require trained medical personnel to execute above the basic, level one “Care Under Fire” guidelines, but in essence, should be considered an integral part of planning for medical care for the guerrilla force.

Beyond the fighting portion of the “shoot (fight), move, communicate” aspects of the 2^nd line fighting load-out, the issue of communications within the guerrilla force should be considered. While there are ways to leverage the technology of two-way radios into the communications package of the guerrilla force/resistance effort, the communications security (COMSEC) protocols demanded are beyond the scope of this article. The use of two-way radios, especially FRS/GMRS radios (unlike many “survival” and “preparedness” writers, I recognize the weak transmission strengths of these line-of-sight radios as a strength, since it actually reduces the chance of successful signals intercept at any extended range. Further, in alpine environments, using ridge-top LP/OPs, the line-of-sight transmissions of these radios is more than sufficient for use in guerrilla base security networks. Additionally, their limited range is not an impediment for intra-unit communications needs. –J.M.) however, should never be allowed to overshadow the effectiveness and usefulness of written and/or oral communications, delivered via courier to the guerrilla force. There is a reason that guerrilla wars are referred to as “long wars.” Time ultimately, favors the guerrilla, if he maintains his security.

 

Ultimately, this is the fundamental load for the guerrilla 2^nd line fighting load. While there are numerous other equipment items that could be useful for the guerrilla fighter to add, from STANO to breaching tools, these should be assessed on a mission-essential basis, and only added to the load, when needed or warranted. The above load, when combined with a 3^rd line sustainment load, already exceeds the loads traditionally carried by historical guerrilla forces. The difference however, must be weighed.

Historically, guerrilla forces have not hesitated to “tax” the local civilian populace to support their efforts, as well as having been at a dramatic disadvantage due to the lack of available technological assets available. The potential future American guerrilla however, has no moral ground (in my opinion –J.M.) to tax the civilian populace, and should make every effort to leverage whatever technology he has available, as long as it does not in itself, become a burden by detracting from his field-craft skills and the application of true light-infantry tactics, techniques, and procedures.

 

Nous Defions!

John Mosby

Somewhere in the mountains.