So you’re about to buy yourself a rural retreat? Congratulations. We hope you’ll never need it, but how wonderful it is to know it is there and available if things should go severely wrong.
In among all the other things you need to consider when choosing a retreat is its lot size. There are a number of different factors affecting how large a lot you need, including the soil type, what sorts of crops you plan to cultivate, the animals you might also raise, and, oh yes, some defensive considerations too.
Some of these considerations vary enormously (ie, the number of people each acre of farmed land can support), but the defensive factors are fairly constant. So let’s make this an easy read for you, and an easy write for us, and talk about them.
We’ve written at length, in past articles, about the need to design your retreat to be sturdy and able to withstand rifle fire, that’s not actually the risk that keeps us awake at night worrying the most about. Ideally you wanteverywhere you’re likely to be on your retreat to be safe and not at risk of enemy attack. Most notably, you not only want to be safe inside the strong walls of your retreat, but also while outside, exposed, and vulnerable, working in your fields, too.
The Biggest Risk of Violent Takeover/Takeout You’ll Face
We see the greatest risk as being picked off, one or two at a time, while we’re working in the fields. It is conceivable that we might be some distance from our retreat, and we could be bent over, planting or picking some crop, when all of a sudden, a sniper’s bullet slams into our back, even before the sound of the shot reached us. Talk about literally no warning – it doesn’t get any more sudden than that.
By the time the people around us heard the shot and started to react, a second round might already be meeting the second target. And then, all of a sudden, nothing. Well, nothing except a thoroughly panicked remainder of the people we were out in the fields with, all exposed in the middle of the crop, and one or two dead or nearly-dead bodies.
Even if everyone always carried weapons with them – and even if they were rifles rather than short-range pistols which would be useless at these sorts of ranges – by the time anyone had responded, grabbed their rifle (try doing some type of ongoing manual labor with a rifle slung over your shoulders – chances are everyone in the group will have their rifles set to one side rather than slung over their shoulders), chambered a round, and hunched over their sights, where would they look and what would they see? Possibly nothing at all. The sniper would retreat, as stealthily as he arrived, his job well done for the day.
Rinse and repeat. Have the same event occur again a day or two later, and you’re not only now down four people (and any sniper worthy of the name will be carefully choosing the most valuable of the people in the field each time), but you’ve got a panicked group of fellow community members demanding ‘protection’. Except that – what sort of protection can you give against a faceless guerilla enemy – someone who picks and chooses the time and location of their attacks? Furthermore, you’re now four people down, and you have to choose what to do with your able-bodied group members – are they to be tasked for defensive patrolling duties or working your crops. You don’t have enough people to do both!
No smart adversary will attack your retreat in a full frontal assault. That would be a crazy thing to do. Instead, they’ll act as we just described, picking you off, one or two at a time, taking as long as is necessary to do so. Your retreat is no longer your refuge. It has become the bulls-eye on the attacker’s target map, and all they have to do is observe and bide their time, taking advantage of the opportunities and situations they prepare for and select, rather than being taken advantage of by you and your tactical preparations.
Don’t think that defensive patrols will do you a great deal of good, either. How many men would you have on each patrol? One? Two? Five? Ten? Whatever the number, you’d need to be willing to accept casualties in any contact with the adversary, and unless your people are uniquely skilled and able to use some aspect of tactical advantage, all your enemy needs to do is observe your front and rear doors and wait/watch for patrols to sally forth from your retreat.
This scenario is similar to how the Allies ringed the German U-boat bases with anti-submarine planes and ships (and how we and our adversaries monitor each other’s subs these days too). While a U-boat might be very hard to find and detect in the middle of the North Atlantic, they all had to leave and return to their bases through obvious unavoidable routes. Why hunt for a U-boat in thousands of square miles of ocean when you know to within a few hundred feet where they’ll be departing from.
If you do deploy a patrol, they are at the disadvantage. The enemy will be in a prepared position while your team will now be exposed on open ground. The enemy will have set an ambush, and your team will find themselves in it. Depending on the size of the enemy team, and on the respective skill levels, you just know you’re going to lose some team members (and, more likely, all of them) when the ambush slams shut around them.
One more sobering thought. Call us cynical if you like, but we suspect an attacking force will be both more willing to risk/accept casualties among its members than you are, and will also find it easier to recruit replacement manpower. The leader of the attackers probably has no close personal relationship with his men, whereas you’re with your friends and family. The attackers can promise new recruits a chance at plundering stores and supplies and ensuring their own comfortable survival, and if recruits don’t join, they are probably facing extreme hardship or starvation as an alternative.
From their point of view, if things go well for them, they get something they didn’t have before, and if things go badly, they suffer the same fate they are likely to suffer anyway. But from your point of view, the best that can happen is that you keep what you currently have (at least until the next such encounter) and the worst that can happen doesn’t bear thinking about.
Or, to put it another way, for the attackers, heads they win and tails they don’t lose. For you, heads you don’t win and tails you do lose.
So, what does this all have to do with the size of your retreat lot?
The most effective tool you have to defend against attack is open space. If you have a quarter-mile of open space in all directions around you, wherever you are on your lot, then it will be difficult for a sniper to sneak up on you, while being easy for you to keep a watch on the open space all about. If the sniper does open fire from a quarter-mile away, you’re facing better odds that he might miss on the all important first shot, and much better odds that the subsequent shots will also be off-target.
Compare that to working in, say, a forest, where the bad guys might be lurking behind the tree immediately ahead of you. At that range, they couldn’t miss and could quickly take over your entire group before you had a chance to respond.
You need to consider two things when deciding how much land you need for your retreat lot.
The first issue is specific to the land you’re looking at. What is the topography of the land? Is it all flat, or are their rises and falls, a hill or valley or something else?
If there are natural sight barriers, you need to decide how to respond to them. Some might be alterable (such as moving a barn, cutting down some trees), and others you’re stuck with (the hill rising up and cresting, not far from your retreat). Depending on the types of sight barriers you have, you can determine how close adversaries can come to your property boundaries – and, indeed, some types of sight barriers will allow them to get into your property and potentially close to you, while probably remaining entirely undetected.
Don’t go all fanciful here and start fantasizing about patrols and observation posts and electronic monitoring. The chances are you don’t have sufficient manpower to create an efficient effective system of patrols and OPs, and if you don’t have sufficient manpower to create a secure network of patrolling and OPs, you have to sort of wonder what value there is in a partial network. Won’t the bad guys be clever enough to plan their movements and actions to exploit your weaknesses?
As for the electronic stuff, this is typically overrated, and provides a less comprehensive set of information than can be gathered by ‘boots on the ground’, and of course, only works until it stops working, at which point it is useless.
Our first point therefore is that some lots are just not well laid out for defending, and while everything else about them might be appealing, if you feel that you’ll need to be able to defend not just your retreat building itself, but the land around it – the land on which your crops are farmed and your animals raised – then you should walk away from the deal and not buy the lot.
What is the point of buying an ‘insurance policy’ to protect you against worst case scenarios, if your policy (your retreat and lot) only works with moderately bad rather than truly worst case scenarios? That’s an exercise in futility and wishful thinking, and as a prepper, you’re not keen on either of these indulgences!
Lines of Sight – How Much is Enough?
Okay, so you’ve found a lot with no obvious topographic challenges, and unobstructed lines of sight out a long way in every direction.
Let’s now try to pin a value on the phrase ‘a long way’. How far do you need to be able to see, in order to maintain a safe and secure environment all around you?
Some people might say ‘100 yards’. Others might say ‘1000 yards’. And so on, through pretty much any imaginable range of distances. There’s probably no right answer, but there are some obviously wrong answers.
Let’s look at the minimum safe range first.
Is 100 yards a good safe distance? We say no, for two reasons. The first reason is obvious – a bullet round can travel those 100 yards in almost exactly 0.1 seconds, and even a person with limited skills can place a carefully aimed shot onto a slow-moving man-sized target at that range. You are a sitting duck at 100 yards.
But wait – there’s more. A bad guy can probably sprint over that 100 yards in 10 seconds. Even if he has nothing more than a machete, he can be on top of you in ten seconds. Consider also that he’ll wait until you’re not looking in his direction before he starts his run, and add 0.75 seconds reaction time and maybe another second of ‘what is that?’ and ‘oh no, what should I do!’ time, and by the time you’ve identified him as a threat, reached your rifle, and got it ready to fire, he is probably now at arm’s length, with his machete slashing viciously down toward you.
A 200 yard range is very much nicer. You’ve become a smaller target, and the bullet aimed at you takes over twice as long to reach you; more important than the extra tenth of a second or so in travel time however is that it is now more like three times as affected by wind, temperature, humidity, manufacturing imperfections, and so on. A skilled adversary can still have a high chance of first shot bulls-eyes, but regular shooters will not do so well. The bad guy with the machete will take closer to 25 seconds to reach you, and will be out of breath when he gets there.
We’re not saying you’re completely safe if you maintain a 200 yard security zone around yourself. But we are saying you’re very much safer than if you had ‘only’ a 100 yard security zone.
So, if 200 yards is good, 300 yards is obviously better, right? Yes, no disagreement with that. But at what distance does the cost of buying more land outweigh the increase in security? Most of us will be forced to accept a smaller buffer zone than we’d ideally like, and perhaps the main point in this case is for you to be aware of how unsafe a small buffer zone truly is, and to maintain some type of sustainably increased defensive posture whenever you’re outdoors.
In the real world, you’ll be compromising between lot size/cost and security right from the get-go, and few of us can afford to add a 200 yard buffer around our lot, let alone a 300 or 400 yard buffer. To demonstrate the amount of land required, here are two tables. Both assume an impractically ‘efficient’ use of land – we are making these calculations on the basis of perfect circles, with the inner circle being your protected area and the outer circle being the total area with the added buffer zone space. But you can never buy circular lots, so the actual real world lot sizes would be bigger than we have calculated here.
For example, where we show, below, the five acre lot with a 200 yard buffer zone as requiring a total of 54 acres if in perfect circles, if the five acre lot was rectangular, and the buffer zone also rectangular but with rounded corners, the total lot would grow to 57 acres, and when we allow for the impossibility of rounded corners, the total lot size then grows to 64 acres.
So keep in mind these are best case numbers shown primarily to simply illustrate the implications of adding a buffer zone to a base lot size, and showing how quickly any sort of buffer zone causes the total land area to balloon in size to ridiculous numbers.
If you had a one acre area in the middle of your lot, and wanted to keep a buffer zone around it, the absolute minimum lot size would be
|Buffer zone in yards
||Minimum total lot size in acres
||Minimum perimeter in yards
|| 13 acres
|| 24 acres
|| 37 acres
|| 55 acres
||1820 (1 mile)
|| 75 acres
||2135 (1.2 miles)
|| 99 acres
||2445 (1.4 miles)
|| 126 acres
||2760 (1.6 miles)
If you have a core area of 5 acres, the numbers become
|Buffer zone in yards
||Minimum total lot size in acres
||Minimum perimeter in yards
|| 23 acres
|| 37 acres
|| 54 acres
||1810 (1 mile)
|| 74 acres
||2120 (1.2 miles)
|| 98 acres
||2435 (1.4 miles)
|| 125 acres
||2750 (1.55 miles)
|| 155 acres
||3065 (1.7 miles)
Clearly, it quickly becomes wildly impractical to establish the type of clear zone that you’d ideally like.
On the other hand, there’s one possible interpretation of these figures that would be wrong. You can see that with a 1 acre core lot, you need a minimum of 37 acres in total to establish a 200 yard zone around your one acre. If you grow your lot to 5 acres, your total lot size grows by a great deal more than five acres. It goes from 37 acres up to 54 acres.
But – here’s the thing you should not misunderstand. The bigger your core lot, the more efficient the ratio between protected space and total space becomes. In the example just looked at, you had ratios of 1:37 and 5:54, with 5:54 being the same as 1:11. This is a much better overall efficiency, even though adding the extra four acres required you to add 17 extra acres in total.
If you had ten acres of core land, then your 200 yard safety zone would require 68 acres in total, and your ratio now becomes 10:68 or 1:7. Still extremely wasteful, but 1:7 is massively better than 1:37!
This improving efficiency for larger lot sizes hints at two strategies to improve your land utilization.
Two Strategies to Manage Your Clear Zone Risk and Requirement
Our two tables showing the amount of space you need as a safety/buffer/clear zone around your land embody a subtle assumption that perhaps can be reviewed and revised.
We are assuming that if you don’t own the land, it will be uncontrolled and uncontrollable, and will be exploited by adversaries to mount surprise attacks on you from positions of concealment and/or cover.
That is a possibility, yes. But there’s another possibility, too. If the land contiguous with your land is owned by friendly like-minded folk, and if they have cleared their land for cultivation too, plus have at least some awareness of risk issues and keep some degree of access restrictions to their land, then you probably don’t need as much buffer zone on the property line between you and them.
If you and your neighbor had five acre blocks adjacent to each other, then (depending on lot sizes and shapes), you would each require about 57 acres in total to have a 200 yard safety zone, but with your lots next to each other, the two of you together need only 73 acres instead of 114 acres. You each now have a 37 acre lot instead of a 57 acre lot, and that’s a much better value.
On the other hand, call us paranoid, if you like, but we would always want some controlled space around our main retreat structure, no matter who is currently living next to us. Neighbors can sell up or in other ways change.
This concern – that today’s ‘good’ neighbors might become tomorrow’s bad neighbors, points to the second strategy. Why not rent out some of your land to other people. That way you have more control over the people around you.
You could either do this by extending your core protected land and maintaining a buffer zone around both the land you farm directly and the land you rent out, or by renting out some of the buffer zone land to tenant farmers.
If you had five acres of your own core land, and if you then added another five acres to it, and also rented out the first 50 yards of your 200 yard buffer zone, then that would mean of the total 68 acre holding, there would be ten acres with 200 yards of buffer zone, and up to another 9.6 acres around it that still had a 150 yard buffer zone. In round figures, you could use 20 of the 68 acres, with 10 offering prime security and another 10 almost as good security. You’re now getting a reasonably efficient land utilization (20:68 or 1:3.5) and you’ve also added some adjacent friendly tenant farmers, giving your own retreat community a boost by having some like-minded folks around you.
Lines of Sight vs Crops – a Problem and a Solution
We’ve been making much about the benefit of having lines of sight stretching out a relatively safe distance so that adversaries can’t creep up on you, unawares. The importance of this is obvious.
But, how practical is it to have unobscured lines of sight when you’re growing crops? As an extreme example, think of a field of corn or wheat, and to a lesser extent, think of many other crops which of course have an above ground presence. These types of crops will reduce or completely negate your line of sight visibility.
The solution is that you need to have an observation post that can look down onto the crops from a sufficient height so as to see if people are passing through them. The higher this is, the better the visibility and ability to see down into the fields from above.
Depending on the layout of your land, the most convenient place for this would be to build it into your retreat. You already have a (hopefully) multi-level retreat structure, why not simply add an observation post at the top of the retreat.
If that isn’t possible, another approach might be to have a tower structure somewhere that has a wind turbine generator or at least a windmill mounted on the top, giving you two benefits from the structure.
Your biggest vulnerability, in a future Level 3 type situation where you are living at your retreat and need to grow your own crops and manage your own livestock so as to maintain a viable lifestyle for some years, will be when you are out in the fields and focused on your farming duties.
Maintaining any type of effective security of your retreat would require more manpower than you could afford to spare, and even then, would remain vulnerable to a skilled and determined adversary. A better strategy is to create a buffer zone between the land you work and the uncontrolled land adjacent to you. This buffer zone reduces the lethality of any surprise assault and gives you time to shelter, regroup and defend.
Because a sufficient sized buffer zone requires an enormous amount of additional land, we suggest you either rent out some of your buffer zone or settle next to other like-minded folk, giving you relatively safe and more secure boundaries on at least some sides of your retreat lot.
Original posted on http://codegreenprep.com/2014/08/many-acres-need-retreat-defense-considerations/