Cabin building in dangerous places.

How do hunters build a Log Cabin ? Bear proof ?

A Mosin rifle would make it bear proof... and provide skins and meat for quite a few good feeds.

I would think animals that hunt in packs would be more dangerous like Wolves.

That is only because your tent was not elephant proof

Russian forces ambush and capture Uke marines crossing the Dnepr

Lucky dudes. War is over for them.

That is only because your tent was not elephant proof

It was. Elephant could walk right through it.

taking a closer look into your own history, with no rose glasses,

I´m glad that we Germans don´t have any issues with our past.

So my friendly recommendation to you would be taking a closer look into your own history, with no rose glasses, instead of reinventing the history of others

I am telling you the history I was taught at school, which has a clear and biased British slant.

The views I hold now are based on Documentaries by people like Oliver Stone who is an American I do trust.

Slaves are not a white western invention, the local Maori tribes took slaves from their enemy tribes they defeated in battle and the selling of slaves and their heads was perfectly normal practise. It was never seen as a white or a black thing.

There was a story of a black slave in the US who was very talented at farming and pretty soon he won his freedom and started accumulating wealth and as he did so... he bought some land and he bought some slaves to work that land and became even richer.

Slaves was nothing to do with skin colour... it was about being rich and about being poor. Some very poor families sold their children into slavery to get money to eat in the hopes that their new owners would feed their children too because they couldn't afford it.

Other slaves were criminals who had unending sentences and had to work their debt which of course kept increasing because they would overcharge them for food and housing and clothes.

Will be moving the off topic stuff to a separate thread shortly...

I have never had to worry about dangerous animals here in New Zealand, the only dangerous predator here is sadly the worlds most dangerous animal... humans.

I would say if I was going to build a cabin in the woods to live alone I would take a good dog with me.

I would build the cabin from the middle out starting with a cool dry windowless room for storing food that would be the room I would retreat to if under siege. Give it a gap and a two layer wall around it and fill the gap with dirt for extra insulation.

Then I would build the cabin around that with thick double layer walls filled with dirt for insulation.

I would make a fireplace and try to keep a fire going most of the time to scare away animals when needed.

I would think the best advice would come from the locals that live in the area though.

A decent rifle would be important and a shotgun would also be useful for hunting a range of animals.

Shotguns are very versatile and can be useful against a range of targets with the right ammo... up to and including bears.

I have seen some pretty amazing houses made from wood... some Russian wooden cabins are even made without nails...

Nothing humans build can be safe from humans unless the humans don't realise it is even there.

There are lots of survival games about zombie apocalypses where people are free to commit war crimes on people from around the world where people describe building a base under a bridge, but not on the ground... actually above the ground attached to the underside of the bridge, where most people would not think of looking for anything.

The key of course is your entrances... if they are obvious then your hide will be found.

A rope ladder up to a hide in a tree is good because like the draw bridge on a castle you can raise the drawbridge or drop the portcullis to control entry.

Showing images of Bears climbing up ropes means nothing if you see it happening... such a bear would be terribly vulnerable to attack and if they fall and injure themselves you could probably drop a rock on their heads and get a free feed for a week and a nice big rug for the floor.

The main problem with living underground is if there are heavy rains and water starts flooding your hidehole.

When enormous volumes of water come pissing through your entire roof area a bail out bucket just wont cut it and waiting for the water table to drop before the water even starts to drop leaves you rather vulnerable... not to mention the flow of water like that risks weakening the soil and creates the serious risk of collapse and being buried alive.

For thousands of years people have lived in caves but natural caves are pretty rare in some environments like the tundra or sandy desert.

Caves bring their own issues of course like an avalanche burying you in tens of thousands of tons of snow or ice or dirt and tree material.

The solution to Russian troops at your door throwing grenades in and firing bursts of 545mm ammo into your living space is to detect when they were approaching and surrender.

If there was any other solution to that what would happen is that the Russian troops would mark the location of the bunker and watch it while engineers come forward with lots of seriously large explosives to first throw into the opening and then place on the surface directed downwards to collapse it back further from the entrance.

From an engineering point of view the solution is to not be an individual out on your own or in a small group and become part of an enormous force with proper air defence and ammo and fuel in production and supplied to the front line in useful quantities and to work as a team to first isolate enemy groups and then either wipe them out as a larger group, or accept their surrender, and then move on to the next group.

Unless you really know what you are doing a tree hut is going to be a bad idea generally and in some places no protection at all.

In places with Monkeys your food stores will be robbed on a daily or hourly basis and some species can be rather aggressive too.

Not to mention many types of dangerous snakes live in some trees and of course a strong wind and your 'hide' collapsing could actually kill you.

From what I have seen of people living in the arctic they have dogs to protect themselves from bears. A military group that was setting up a base near a scientific station chatted to a local scientist on arrival and the guy in charge asked about the dogs they had all over the place. The scientist basically said the bears are not afraid of a single dog but several dogs approaching from different directions trying to nip them confuses and upsets them and they move on to easier meals, which is why they normally have a group of dogs... which is also useful for creating teams to pull sleds, but some dogs pull sleds and some are protection and warning.

Often just the early warning that a bear is nearby is enough to be safe.

GarryB wrote:
I am telling you the history I was taught at school, which has a clear and biased British slant.

Yes I know. I was just focusing on the fact, that no country sees it's history objectively.
Sometimes it is a matter of common projection.
In some countries, there is more common sense rather than in others.
Brits are using history as just one more tool for the nonending struggle for dominance.
Objectively, they are world's most aggressive nation, with the most bloodied hands.
But you can bet that none of them sees that this way.
They have an extremely long history of meddling in Russian matters, and the funny fact is that in the end, they have been beaten at every single front.
They have lost to Russia in India.
Iran.
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Bangladesh.
All over Africa.
Middle East.
Every single spot where they have fought for global dominance with the Russian Empire, or the Soviet Union, or the modern Russian Federation - they lost.
People who are disputing that, doing so for political bias rather than objective facts.
And rejecting them.
Some countries - ekhm .. ekhm ... Vistilian Empire ... ekhm ... - pretend to have some sort of "privileged" position, or being struck by history on an unparallel level, while it is just a common projection.
In 1941, Brits with the Soviet Union invaded and occupied sovereign Iran only to exclude the possibility for shah to align with Hitler. There was no real threat of that, Iranian policy was turning in the demanded direction already. So the operation was carried "just in case", or maybe rather because "we can afford it" way. This chapter of history is not widely known, and seems grotesque if we remind that the Brits seriously considered supporting Finland with its war against the Soviet Union only a year before.

Yes I know. I was just focusing on the fact, that no country sees it's history objectively.

Totally agree and would add that most countries see the history of other countries in a different light too depending on their feelings for those countries... which can actually change over time as well.

Saddam was a hero when he was sending oil to the west in the 70s and in the 80s when he was fighting Iran he was a hero too, but the invasion of Kuwait and the threat he posed to Saudi Arabia made him enemy number one till they had him killed... which they tried every day he was alive after he became persona non grata.

Brits are using history as just one more tool for the nonending struggle for dominance.
Objectively, they are world's most aggressive nation, with the most bloodied hands.
But you can bet that none of them sees that this way.

They cherry pick the elite from other countries and offer education scholoarships to indoctrinate them even more... didn't work with Assad, but most of the time it is effective.

Every single spot where they have fought for global dominance with the Russian Empire, or the Soviet Union, or the modern Russian Federation - they lost.

But they love their fiction... Reilly Ace of Spies springs to mind... they don't make movies about when they were wrong... except by accident.

In 1941, Brits with the Soviet Union invaded and occupied sovereign Iran only to exclude the possibility for shah to align with Hitler. There was no real threat of that, Iranian policy was turning in the demanded direction already. So the operation was carried "just in case", or maybe rather because "we can afford it" way. This chapter of history is not widely known, and seems grotesque if we remind that the Brits seriously considered supporting Finland with its war against the Soviet Union only a year before.

I think about that every time someone stated before that Iran and the Russians might be working together, whether it is handing over F-14s and Phoenix missiles so the Soviets can copy it in the form of the MiG-31 and the AA-9 AAM, (which is BS no matter how you look at it because neither has much in common at all). The Iranians had no more reason to trust the Soviets or the Russians as they have the Americans or British. Fortunately Russia seems to have built up trust again and would not get up to that sort of stuff again and Iran appears to be in the process of joining BRICS and getting some support for growth and development moving forward.

Have a look at this guy making EVERYTHING from scratch - including all the stone-age tools required with nothing but his brains and bare hands.
Fucking amazing stuff!

Some people have amazing practical skills.

I saw one of those survival type TV programmes where they play games and vote people off and one of the guys was super practical and he built their shelter and he hunted for food and created tools and kept their fire going, and a group of women got together and voted him off because they felt threatened by his toxic masculinity. When he left they couldn't keep the fire going and everything fell apart and you could tell they were giving them food and supporting them.

This was quite a few years ago, but I see more recently Bear Gryls had a men vs women survivor type programme and then men treated it like an adventure and broke the survival issues of fire, living area, food, and water, into tasks for themselves and grouped up and each group solved the problem but they still talked and grouped together in bigger groups for more difficult tasks. It was like a big camping trip where everyone forgot everything so they had to go rough for a bit. They really enjoyed themselves. The women, on the other hand couldn't get a fire started and slept in the cold and wet and went round to the guys camp all the time for warmth and mostly to complain which the guys ended up resenting. They essentially were expecting the men to help them. They couldn't work together... they argued all the time and complained all the time and made really really bad decisions. They had some fresh water and decided the best use for that fresh water was to wash their hair and feel nice because attitude is important. Well attitude is important but fresh drinking water is more important.

Obviously these women were idiots and if you got some farm girls off any farm in New Zealand or Australia or anywhere else around the world their practical skills would probably lead to them being as good as the men, but these women were urban princesses waiting to be rescued but talking all the time about how they don't need to be rescued and how they don't need men at all.

The main problem with going out alone trying to survive is that it is much harder, and if you fall and injure yourself, there is a good chance you will just die.

I am a bit of a gun nut, but while many gun nuts think about armageddon or zombie apocalypses, I appreciate the safety and comfort that modern human society provides. Enormous amounts of time and money and effort goes in to keeping roads and footpaths and buildings in order and to transport goods and materials around the place, and running away from that to some forest might sound great... no boss demanding you work harder for less or the same pay, no tax to pay, no noisy neighbours, no local gangs threatening you, etc etc, but mother nature is a bitch... there is a reason you wont find old people living in some forest somewhere... once you can't chase down food for yourself you find vegan diets are not that satisfying.