Thursday, January 16, 2014

close quarters combat


CLOSE QUARTERS COMBAT

Attempting to subdue the enemy from a safe distance with a large number of projectiles is nothing new.  It is basically the basis of gunpowder warfare.  Even prior to gunpowder, archery attempted the same, although ( at least in recent history ) it was the English who did it better than most (  all state sponsored warfare needs a massive civilian financed infrastructure and archers took this to the next level with disposable weapons needing a constant resupply.  This was above and beyond the food/fuel issue.  Ancient warfare was not dissimilar but the English emerged from the long Dark Ages which had seen a contraction to eventually triumph again with these logistics mastered ).  Much ado has been attributed to the rifled long guns of the Colonists and the short comings of the Brown Bess being inaccurate to an embarrassing degree, but this misses the point of the Brits continuing what worked so well for them with the longbowmen.  The reason the Americans favored Indian style warfare was at heart an absence of industry ( massive douche-bags like Washington and other royalty wanna-be’s fully favored lining up the peons for slaughter ) which made a virtue out of a shortcoming.  These lessons were quickly and conveniently forgotten when it benefited the new powers-that-be and once again the armed peasants ( who posed little threat as the weaponry was suited only for state controlled armies ) were lined up for slaughter.  Soldiers became mere replaceable units just as arrows had been and powder and shot came to be.  No one expects the job of a line soldier to be safe, but the state made warriors into soldiers and the two are very different things ( the elites today try to personify the warrior but are sadly hemmed in by the bulk of soldiers.  This is institutionalized and hence no defense against it is possible ).

*

Today, the soldier still has the job of launching as many projectiles towards the enemy as possible in the shortest period of time.  Sadly, the distances between forces has changed little between now and five hundred years ago when the chances of a black powder ball hitting anything smaller than the side of a barn at around a hundred yards was pretty low.  Certainly you can target your enemy at up to three hundred yards as an effecting stopping distance, but mostly you and your buddies are directed at the enemy at much shorter distances.  Training is for all intents and purposes close quarters.  The change from thirty caliber battle rifles to mid-range carbines wasn’t a loss of marksmanship training so much as the emergence of two leading superpowers who controlled the globe’s resources and won through pouring through those ( ore, oil, surplus food for surplus populations ) as quickly as possible.  A smaller caliber allowed more ammunition to be carried and emptied towards the foe de jure. 

*

For the survivalist to copy the military is for him to fight the enemy on the enemies terms.  He is fighting strength with weakness ( his lack of resources ).  For the survivalist, distance is your friend because today’s armies and tomorrows enemies fight close quarters ( and usually win ).  Successful guerillas don’t pander to the enemies strengths.  No one expects you to be a super sniper.  But you can choose to avoid sanding toe to toe and trying to defeat your oppressors.  Bushwhackers will prevail, Tommy Tactical Super Ninja Warriors slinging lead about will be decisively defeated.

END

The Old Bison Blog on CD
Over five years of work and nearly two million words of pure brilliance. Here is the link to order:
http://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00KX7Z1I
*
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.
*

My books available on thumb drive:



Homesteading For $3k Book, Top 20 Survivalist Fiction, Land In Elko, Blog Book, Lord Bison
*
If my Blogger page ever goes down, I will start to post at my regular web site:
www.BisonPress.com
*
My books on PDF available at
http://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?keyWords=james++dakin&sorter=relevance-desc
*
By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there.

23 comments:

  1. In addition to kippers I'd carry these foods that need not be refrigerated
    or cooked.
    http://tinyurl.com/cl8rkdb
    one cup peanuts
    fat...........76 g
    carb....... 22 g
    protein....40 g

    http:/nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3076/2
    one cup sunflower seeds
    fat............120 g
    carbs.........45 g
    protein.......50 g

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll be posting the light weight food article Monday. Peanut butter is one

      Delete
  2. Jimbo:

    Of course they (the brits) were victorious, not by their strategy but by plain luck.

    I can see you are not a war historian. If you were you'll have a different view of the many factors they go into the version of the winner. The one that wins the battle gets to write the History.( of course omitting the real true)

    Read what happen to the Spanish Armada "BEFORE" they approach the british. You can also read "LA GUERRA DEL ASIENTO" (the brits were no so lucky on that one). and you can see the strategy that led to victory.

    Oh you guys See to much T.V. or read too many fantasy books.

    Nickolas Romopapaloupulos
    War historian Phd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long term, the brits were successful because of logistics. After the age of gunpowder, the control of India was the key.

      Delete
    2. Dear Nikki Pompous:
      In Britain Queen Boudicca kicked the Roman's ass. She wound up committing suicide. Hannibal before her kicked the Roman's ass, Hannibal committed suicide.
      The Romans tended to fight the long war - attrition, devastation, and everyone's head on a pike.
      No sane person fights a power like Rome or Britain of the day - unless your Irish or Scottish. In which case lay on MacDuff and the devil take he who first cries yield.
      Phd. My hairy Celtic ass.

      Delete
    3. Now the celts, those were some truely crazy bastards. Gotta love them

      Delete
  3. Centerfire and shotgun, then rimfire, then blackpowder, then bow and arrows - as ammunition is depleted and unable to be replenished, killing each other making war will continue on until we are slinging rocks and 'Your Mother!' is back in vogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the time we are slinging rocks, the vocabulary will be limited to "ugg".

      Delete
  4. Lord Bison of the Great Basin and King of Coiffure;

    Today's Post reads like it was cribbed from Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) and his writings about the importance of rifle marksmanship to be superior to the forces of tyranny thus fighting the war on the terms of the insurgent and not on the terms of the standing military. Naturally, both you and Royce are taking a page from Charlie Wilson, Robert Tauber, H. von Drach and all other Western writers that have written about guerrilla warfare, substituting skill for superior supply. This isn't to say that your idea is without merit (please see the failed Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan) however most serious students have absorbed this lesson and await the opportunity to enact it upon the usurpers of liberty.
    Keep keeping it real James!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I would agree with what you say, the primal wounded screams of all and sundry when semi-auto is questioned would say otherwise.

      Delete
    2. Also, I would argue that my analysis on WHY the tactics evolved are somewhat new.

      Delete
    3. Oh good grief Jim, there you go again.

      "the primal wounded screams of all and sundry when semi-auto is questioned would say otherwise."

      I'm going to type this nice and slow for emphasis (therefore you have to read it nice and slow for absorption):

      I have a semi-auto that is VERY accurate at long distances. As accurate as many, if not most of the bolt actions normal people can afford.

      I can choose to fire this semi-auto very accurately at long distance foes - one freaking shot at a time. Even to the extent of one shot and one shot only.

      Should things go from bad to worse and these foes manage to come to me close-in and in large numbers - I can fire this semi-auto MUCH faster than any bolt action known to man, if need be.

      That right there, Chief... is versatility. It's really nice to have options and the ability whether to exercise them or not.

      PLEASE stop inferring that owning or preferring a semi-auto rifle will instantly relegate its owner to the status of knuckle-dragging moron who will immediately employ rapid twitchy-jerky trigger pulls until the magazine is empty just because he can whenever a situation arises.

      Delete
    4. I infer 99% of semi owners will do so. You might be the 1%.

      Delete
  5. Jim a good example is the afgans against the soviets.They got there AKs by old farts pegging soviet humppers with enfield and mausers from 500+ yards.A good deer rifle and scope is capable of this in the right hands.I have always felt a 22 rim fire is fine for supression fire as long as someone in the group is good with a 30/06 has position.Out of 10 men how many would charge into 22 fire just because it was ONLY A 22 ? i wouldnt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd rather have ten thousand 22lr bullets than one thousand 223's
    No one down range ever asks what caliber the other guy is shooting !
    One should stockpile 22 lr just like wheat and have bucket fulls...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now, I don't have me no fancy made up Greek name, nor do I claim a Doctorate in Advanced Bullshit( just a Masters ). So let me give you one hard and solid rule:

    To always win a fight - don't be there when the fight happens.

    Now some may pride themselves on the fantasy that they have "Tiger Blood". Me? I got me some serious "Jackrabbit Blood".

    So what happens when you can't run? Here is a hint: force multiplier - use the environment to your advantage. At the risk of incurring the disdain of Dr. Pomp - here is a hint:
    What did Rambo do to the dumb-ass deputies in the forest(First Blood)?
    Those are all real booby traps. Can you identify the Malay Gate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, when the fight comes to you and it is giveup your food or fight...

      Delete
  8. Geez Jim

    I don't know if you re-filled your prescription or decided to stop taking it...
    Your articles have been half decent lately.
    Keep it up

    You Know Who

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christmas is over- hence, much less stress at work and I can devote more mental energy to here. And thank you.

      Delete
  9. Your rantings are incoherent and inaccurate. The militia's marksmanship was abysmal, and they were not capable of stopping a much smaller, surrounded British force, from escaping Lexington-Concord. Once the British learned not to charge militia behind field fortifications (early on at Bunker Hill) it took a lot of ingenuity to find a suitable use for them - primarily at Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse.

    Over time, the combat distance has almost universally increased because of the lethality of modern weapons. Fighting modern armies in any scenario is insane. Note that the Mexican Army, not generally thought of as an elite force, is more than capable of defeating the very experienced Sicarios that they face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Militia units proficient in marksmenship, as long as they fought Indian style and were not lined up for slaughter, made a good showing. Are the Sicarios fighting conventionally, or guerilla? Haven't studied that at all.

      Delete
    2. Cowpens and Guilford were Southern fights involving Southern Celts. We ain't no Damn Yankees with a squirrel gun. The Southern Theater was completely different from the Northern Theater since the South, on both sides, was primarily Americans, with British regulars in command on the Loyalist side. Considering the success of Francis Marion in destroying British supply lines and liberating POWs - sometimes militias make sense.

      Delete