The Fraternal Order of /k/

i had this idea, and i figured it was more relevant to throw it here rather than in the random forum. what if instead of looking at this from the stand point of a group of people holding territory or a "free state of /k/" look at it as a organization like a chivalric order. and yes we've have been throwing this concept around. but the precept is that we conquer territory for the purpose of conquering it. this way we wouldn't be responsible for the civil populace but we still make the rules. how about having a permanent estate in one place that we may not necessarily govern and use it as a base of operations to ballistically promote liberty throughout the world

imonaboat wrote:i had this idea, and i figured it was more relevant to throw it here rather than in the random forum. what if instead of looking at this from the stand point of a group of people holding territory or a "free state of /k/" look at it as a organization like a chivalric order. and yes we've have been throwing this concept around. but the precept is that we conquer territory for the purpose of conquering it. this way we wouldn't be responsible for the civil populace but we still make the rules. how about having a permanent estate in one place that we may not necessarily govern and use it as a base of operations to ballistically promote liberty throughout the world

So you're thinking like what the Knights of Malta used to be before they just became a modern Catholic club?

I'm intrigued, tell me more.

Well, i must confess my ignorance of hospitaller history but from what i see would be more of the Teutonic Knights. basically the short side is this. they were created because civvies needed security out in acre, hadjiland. and went that dried up they got work from various governments and organizations expanding territory and keeping riff-raff out in exchange for land and influence. i could foresee us becoming similar to the french foreign legion was back in the day. a place for people to get a new start. i'm not knowledgeable enough to point at a specific group and say "hey lets be like them!!!" however we can create a military order on our own that would promote our ideals.

If we are going for something like this...I'll call it 'Noble'...then uniforms are a must. You can't be a legitimate organization without organization. Plain clothes operations are still possible, but uniforms are still a definite some of the time.

How deep do we want to go with this though? I think a Knight-esque sort of ranking system would be a decent idea. I prefer rank based on Merit rather than time in service or standardized testing personally. Plus, it allows "Knights" to directly train their "squires" and then as a group we can decide if the novice is worthy of a "Knight" title. The "Man-At-Arms" are just the people who are just there to be a part of the organization but aren't really into operating.

I figure the "knights" deciding if someone is worthy of a Knight title would be better than just a single leader doing it, as this promotes camaraderie (and such).

Humility above all though. I hate jocks.

All pertinent nouns are in quotations because I'm just describing the essence of the position. You guys can decide what we should name them.


Here's my pitch:

Man-At-Arms: Kommando
Squire: Operator
Knight: Specialist

Oh, and these don't have to have anything to do with your department or anything like that, just a measure of your Tacticool, fitness and skill.

Pendrake wrote:If we are going for something like this...I'll call it 'Noble'...then uniforms are a must. You can't be a legitimate organization without organization. Plain clothes operations are still possible, but uniforms are still a definite some of the time.

How deep do we want to go with this though? I think a Knight-esque sort of ranking system would be a decent idea. I prefer rank based on Merit rather than time in service or standardized testing personally. Plus, it allows "Knights" to directly train their "squires" and then as a group we can decide if the novice is worthy of a "Knight" title. The "Man-At-Arms" are just the people who are just there to be a part of the organization but aren't really into operating.

I figure the "knights" deciding if someone is worthy of a Knight title would be better than just a single leader doing it, as this promotes camaraderie (and such).

Humility above all though. I hate jocks.

All pertinent nouns are in quotations because I'm just describing the essence of the position. You guys can decide what we should name them.


Here's my pitch:

Man-At-Arms: Kommando
Squire: Operator
Knight: Specialist

Oh, and these don't have to have anything to do with your department or anything like that, just a measure of your Tacticool, fitness and skill.

I like this. On that note the Space marines have something to that effect. New guys are organized into scout companies and are the typical neophytes then when they become full battle brothers they get the power armour and the highest rank is the Chapter master and in the Legion days it was the primarch. Just tossing around ideas here.

Pendrake wrote:If we are going for something like this...I'll call it 'Noble'...then uniforms are a must. You can't be a legitimate organization without organization. Plain clothes operations are still possible, but uniforms are still a definite some of the time.

How deep do we want to go with this though? I think a Knight-esque sort of ranking system would be a decent idea. I prefer rank based on Merit rather than time in service or standardized testing personally. Plus, it allows "Knights" to directly train their "squires" and then as a group we can decide if the novice is worthy of a "Knight" title. The "Man-At-Arms" are just the people who are just there to be a part of the organization but aren't really into operating.

I figure the "knights" deciding if someone is worthy of a Knight title would be better than just a single leader doing it, as this promotes camaraderie (and such).

Humility above all though. I hate jocks.

All pertinent nouns are in quotations because I'm just describing the essence of the position. You guys can decide what we should name them.


Here's my pitch:

Man-At-Arms: Kommando
Squire: Operator
Knight: Specialist

Oh, and these don't have to have anything to do with your department or anything like that, just a measure of your Tacticool, fitness and skill.

I think this is an excellent idea.
but if i may do some musing and someone tell me if this makes any since. we are going to need different departments. we can't all be hardcore operators that break down doors and shoot kids. we will need Intel, and medical (if you think i'm going to go to the other side of the planet and trade injuries with a bunch of brown people with out at least a decently equipped medic you been smoking some good shit.) sustainment and other what the army calls "corps". these "corps" are usually led by a general of some kind. now i will be the first to admit that i'm a POG (look it up) harder than most but the work i did down range was as important as any infantryman manning an ma deuce.

to get to the point i'm beating around here is that first off the Squire and Knight titles should not be reserved exclusively to trigger pullers but be given as a reflection of their dedication to the group and as recognition to their achievements. i mean think about it, is a cook any less necessary than a sniper? can a tanker maintain an entire t-70 by himself? Pendrake, do you know how to do rebuild a m4? we will eventually need people who can and i don't think that its fair to ignore them because the chose the quiet path of a technician rather than a path of an operator...but that's just my two cents. you can take that and your eagle cash card and get a spiced chai latte.

imonaboat wrote:
I think this is an excellent idea.
but if i may do some musing and someone tell me if this makes any since. we are going to need different departments. we can't all be hardcore operators that break down doors and shoot kids. we will need Intel, and medical (if you think i'm going to go to the other side of the planet and trade injuries with a bunch of brown people with out at least a decently equipped medic you been smoking some good shit.) sustainment and other what the army calls "corps". these "corps" are usually led by a general of some kind. now i will be the first to admit that i'm a POG (look it up) harder than most but the work i did down range was as important as any infantryman manning an ma deuce.

to get to the point i'm beating around here is that first off the Squire and Knight titles should not be reserved exclusively to trigger pullers but be given as a reflection of their dedication to the group and as recognition to their achievements. i mean think about it, is a cook any less necessary than a sniper? can a tanker maintain an entire t-70 by himself? Pendrake, do you know how to do rebuild a m4? we will eventually need people who can and i don't think that its fair to ignore them because the chose the quiet path of a technician rather than a path of an operator...but that's just my two cents. you can take that and your eagle cash card and get a spiced chai latte.

I realize I was kind of ambiguous in my post with what you are talking about: In the beginning I say that the stay-at-home's can be "man-at-arms," and then at the end I say "oh, but it has nothing to do with your job." I believe my thoughts evolved as I kept typing, so please allow me to clarify.

I agree with you entirely: there can be specialists who can perform surgery, Specialists who can do more with a .50 than set the headspace and timing and specialists who know the difference between Soup and Stew as their respective jobs, all without having to pick up a gun. This kind of all goes back to that old conversation about setting up the different 'departments,' but do we want to have one person at the top of each corps or have more of an oligarchical approach with letting the knights decide things? Because in my head, the knights would embody leadership and not just skill. I would kind of expect someone with a title resembling "Knight" to also keep in good shape and things like that. There's a reason I admire Soviet officers more than American ones, and that's because Soviet officers see themselves as needing to be in as good of shape (if not better) than those they command (yes there are fat Russian officers, but even the large ones tend to be weight-lifters at least).

In the end, I agree that POGs are just as important as operators (which was the spirit behind the "Humility above all" sentence).

Also: fuck your Eagle Cash Card. I have yet to actually use mine.

One thing we'll have to contend with is that we aren't going to have a lot of people for a long time, so we'll at best have a working group of 20 kommandos to split between departments in the beginning. I'm sure there will be a lot of cross-departmental working-relation until we get a substantial base of kommandos.
I'm also wondering about the 'corps' themselves. Like will intel just be the nerds and spooks? If so, then who does field reconnaissance? I'm wondering if the intel shop would have some field guys assigned to it who would be the trackers/scouts/spies (essentially light infantry), and then the Combat unit would be composed of Medium and Heavy Infantry (Heavy probably being the mechanized unit), or would we need to divide it like that at all?


I prefer the dark side of the house, with recon, tracking and "item procurement and goods acquisitions." I also appreciate propaganda/news (it's a lovely grey area). I'm not much of a tech guy though.

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:
I think this is an excellent idea.
but if i may do some musing and someone tell me if this makes any since. we are going to need different departments. we can't all be hardcore operators that break down doors and shoot kids. we will need Intel, and medical (if you think i'm going to go to the other side of the planet and trade injuries with a bunch of brown people with out at least a decently equipped medic you been smoking some good shit.) sustainment and other what the army calls "corps". these "corps" are usually led by a general of some kind. now i will be the first to admit that i'm a POG (look it up) harder than most but the work i did down range was as important as any infantryman manning an ma deuce.

to get to the point i'm beating around here is that first off the Squire and Knight titles should not be reserved exclusively to trigger pullers but be given as a reflection of their dedication to the group and as recognition to their achievements. i mean think about it, is a cook any less necessary than a sniper? can a tanker maintain an entire t-70 by himself? Pendrake, do you know how to do rebuild a m4? we will eventually need people who can and i don't think that its fair to ignore them because the chose the quiet path of a technician rather than a path of an operator...but that's just my two cents. you can take that and your eagle cash card and get a spiced chai latte.

I realize I was kind of ambiguous in my post with what you are talking about: In the beginning I say that the stay-at-home's can be "man-at-arms," and then at the end I say "oh, but it has nothing to do with your job." I believe my thoughts evolved as I kept typing, so please allow me to clarify.

I agree with you entirely: there can be specialists who can perform surgery, Specialists who can do more with a .50 than set the headspace and timing and specialists who know the difference between Soup and Stew as their respective jobs, all without having to pick up a gun. This kind of all goes back to that old conversation about setting up the different 'departments,' but do we want to have one person at the top of each corps or have more of an oligarchical approach with letting the knights decide things? Because in my head, the knights would embody leadership and not just skill. I would kind of expect someone with a title resembling "Knight" to also keep in good shape and things like that. There's a reason I admire Soviet officers more than American ones, and that's because Soviet officers see themselves as needing to be in as good of shape (if not better) than those they command (yes there are fat Russian officers, but even the large ones tend to be weight-lifters at least).

In the end, I agree that POGs are just as important as operators (which was the spirit behind the "Humility above all" sentence).

Also: fuck your Eagle Cash Card. I have yet to actually use mine.

One thing we'll have to contend with is that we aren't going to have a lot of people for a long time, so we'll at best have a working group of 20 kommandos to split between departments in the beginning. I'm sure there will be a lot of cross-departmental working-relation until we get a substantial base of kommandos.
I'm also wondering about the 'corps' themselves. Like will intel just be the nerds and spooks? If so, then who does field reconnaissance? I'm wondering if the intel shop would have some field guys assigned to it who would be the trackers/scouts/spies (essentially light infantry), and then the Combat unit would be composed of Medium and Heavy Infantry (Heavy probably being the mechanized unit), or would we need to divide it like that at all?


I prefer the dark side of the house, with recon, tracking and "item procurement and goods acquisitions." I also appreciate propaganda/news (it's a lovely grey area). I'm not much of a tech guy though.

This.
Also, about the "tanker not being able to maintain an entire T-70 by himself" thing, we should train our tankers as mechanics first and foremost, then as combat troops. this would effectively eliminate having a bunch of fobbits with monkey wrenches.

Admin wrote:

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:
I think this is an excellent idea.
but if i may do some musing and someone tell me if this makes any since. we are going to need different departments. we can't all be hardcore operators that break down doors and shoot kids. we will need Intel, and medical (if you think i'm going to go to the other side of the planet and trade injuries with a bunch of brown people with out at least a decently equipped medic you been smoking some good shit.) sustainment and other what the army calls "corps". these "corps" are usually led by a general of some kind. now i will be the first to admit that i'm a POG (look it up) harder than most but the work i did down range was as important as any infantryman manning an ma deuce.

to get to the point i'm beating around here is that first off the Squire and Knight titles should not be reserved exclusively to trigger pullers but be given as a reflection of their dedication to the group and as recognition to their achievements. i mean think about it, is a cook any less necessary than a sniper? can a tanker maintain an entire t-70 by himself? Pendrake, do you know how to do rebuild a m4? we will eventually need people who can and i don't think that its fair to ignore them because the chose the quiet path of a technician rather than a path of an operator...but that's just my two cents. you can take that and your eagle cash card and get a spiced chai latte.

I realize I was kind of ambiguous in my post with what you are talking about: In the beginning I say that the stay-at-home's can be "man-at-arms," and then at the end I say "oh, but it has nothing to do with your job." I believe my thoughts evolved as I kept typing, so please allow me to clarify.

I agree with you entirely: there can be specialists who can perform surgery, Specialists who can do more with a .50 than set the headspace and timing and specialists who know the difference between Soup and Stew as their respective jobs, all without having to pick up a gun. This kind of all goes back to that old conversation about setting up the different 'departments,' but do we want to have one person at the top of each corps or have more of an oligarchical approach with letting the knights decide things? Because in my head, the knights would embody leadership and not just skill. I would kind of expect someone with a title resembling "Knight" to also keep in good shape and things like that. There's a reason I admire Soviet officers more than American ones, and that's because Soviet officers see themselves as needing to be in as good of shape (if not better) than those they command (yes there are fat Russian officers, but even the large ones tend to be weight-lifters at least).

In the end, I agree that POGs are just as important as operators (which was the spirit behind the "Humility above all" sentence).

Also: fuck your Eagle Cash Card. I have yet to actually use mine.

One thing we'll have to contend with is that we aren't going to have a lot of people for a long time, so we'll at best have a working group of 20 kommandos to split between departments in the beginning. I'm sure there will be a lot of cross-departmental working-relation until we get a substantial base of kommandos.
I'm also wondering about the 'corps' themselves. Like will intel just be the nerds and spooks? If so, then who does field reconnaissance? I'm wondering if the intel shop would have some field guys assigned to it who would be the trackers/scouts/spies (essentially light infantry), and then the Combat unit would be composed of Medium and Heavy Infantry (Heavy probably being the mechanized unit), or would we need to divide it like that at all?


I prefer the dark side of the house, with recon, tracking and "item procurement and goods acquisitions." I also appreciate propaganda/news (it's a lovely grey area). I'm not much of a tech guy though.

This.
Also, about the "tanker not being able to maintain an entire T-70 by himself" thing, we should train our tankers as mechanics first and foremost, then as combat troops. this would effectively eliminate having a bunch of fobbits with monkey wrenches.

i'm sorry i disagree. once again i'm speaking as from my experience from the army but what your suggesting is long, expensive and resource consuming. the tankers are going to spend a year and a half in training just to learn how to drive a tank and on top of that were going to teach them to do maintenance that they are never going to have the equipment to perform? even just for tankers this is a crazy idea and if we start talking about pilots doing this sort of thing they would never see the inside of a cockpit. now i don't want to get into a POG v grunt pissing contest with you but if you think that everyone that is going to be with us are going to be triggerpullers than your wrong

also fuck you for throwing out the "f" word

Well, the pilots thing does make sense, because planes and helos are ridiculously complicated, but tanks, especially the cold war era T-72's are relatively simple, and private collectors usually maintain them with a group of their collector buddies, but they dont have to worry about armor integrity or armaments.

I have to say that mechanics and vehicle operators can SOMETIMES cross polinate. SWCCs are their own mechanics for one. I don't know enough about Helicopters to even speculate about their difficulty, but for our technicals and APC's, I think the drivers and mechanics can be the same people. Do they have to be? No. I'm sure there will be some guys who are JUST mechanics and otherwise handy-men.

I've got a friend who I can't imagine staying with the Navy longer than a single tour (if he has other options). He's a Nuke drop-out who went GunnersMate, so I think we'll have an armorer for our starter set of personnel. He's also a childhood friend from the age of 6, so he's trustworthy.

Pendrake wrote:I have to say that mechanics and vehicle operators can SOMETIMES cross polinate. SWCCs are their own mechanics for one. I don't know enough about Helicopters to even speculate about their difficulty, but for our technicals and APC's, I think the drivers and mechanics can be the same people. Do they have to be? No. I'm sure there will be some guys who are JUST mechanics and otherwise handy-men.

I've got a friend who I can't imagine staying with the Navy longer than a single tour (if he has other options). He's a Nuke drop-out who went GunnersMate, so I think we'll have an armorer for our starter set of personnel. He's also a childhood friend from the age of 6, so he's trustworthy.

well i can tell you about the aircraft. i was avionics when i was in the army. (like i said POG) its a bitch on easy birds like the Kiowas. you have armaments, avionics, air frame, power train, engines and AVUM (stuff like changing the light bulbs and knocking the dents out) and among those groups you have an average of 8 to 12 different specialties. like me i was a countermeasures guy. but we also had commo, wire chasers, tracking and targeting (like FLIR and shit) and a general maintenance guy that pick the miscellaneous bitch work. i don't know how the ruskies divided it but that's how the us does it.

hey complete change of subject but what do you think of modeling ourselves after these niggers?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

imonaboat wrote:hey complete change of subject but what do you think of modeling ourselves after these niggers?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In what way? I mean, they were just a company who only dealt with governments that were regarded as "legitimate." What aspect of them are you hoping to replicate (besides their efficiency)?

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:hey complete change of subject but what do you think of modeling ourselves after these niggers?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In what way? I mean, they were just a company who only dealt with governments that were regarded as "legitimate." What aspect of them are you hoping to replicate (besides their efficiency)?

my bad i should have been more specific. how about since they had a similar mission profile as us (i.e. same general AO, similar op tempo goals, similar equipment challenges, similar structuring desires etc.) we could use there corporate model to become both operational and financially solvent.

sorry about the lack of info. just started on at a local police academy. tired as shit

imonaboat wrote:
my bad i should have been more specific. how about since they had a similar mission profile as us (i.e. same general AO, similar op tempo goals, similar equipment challenges, similar structuring desires etc.) we could use there corporate model to become both operational and financially solvent.

That sounds like a good starting point, but do you actually have this info somewhere? I can't find anything specific regarding their structuring or corporate model, but their field-tactics are basically the same as those used by South African Special Forces during the 80's and 90's. If anything, one of their strategies was one of exclusion, in that they only hired men who had served in the South African military. A take-away from that could be understanding the importance of language and knowing the terrain and political climate of an area of operations based on how their contracts were generally in Africa.

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:
my bad i should have been more specific. how about since they had a similar mission profile as us (i.e. same general AO, similar op tempo goals, similar equipment challenges, similar structuring desires etc.) we could use there corporate model to become both operational and financially solvent.

That sounds like a good starting point, but do you actually have this info somewhere? I can't find anything specific regarding their structuring or corporate model, but their field-tactics are basically the same as those used by South African Special Forces during the 80's and 90's. If anything, one of their strategies was one of exclusion, in that they only hired men who had served in the South African military. A take-away from that could be understanding the importance of language and knowing the terrain and political climate of an area of operations based on how their contracts were generally in Africa.

well, shit. anybody have an idea as to how to find the corporate charter? call me lazy but they've done this shit before and it will be simpler to follow what they did right and work around what didn't.

imonaboat wrote:
well, shit. anybody have an idea as to how to find the corporate charter? call me lazy but they've done this shit before and it will be simpler to follow what they did right and work around what didn't.

All I can find is non-specific things about their business. This was an interesting little repository:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I'd like ot get back to talking about our approach to training and maintaining Mechanised crews and pilots as well as a few other things.


We're definitely going to need some programmers/L337 H4x0rz. Especially if we start doing some domestic work, the knowledge they can garner would be invaluable. Another thing they would eb best at is cyber-security and figuring out our cyber-communications. I don't really know anyone that L337 myself.

Drones. They're the future, and we better start figuring out how to utilise them. Gear-heads will be needed for that. Even limited-range scouting devices would do us good. Modding things like the Parrot AR are good starting points as well as running wireless cameras on RC trucks.

For guys interested in armored vehicles and such, I'd be interested to see what idea you come up with for making ad-hoc armor for soft-skin vehicles. Whether it's deployable metal plates like in the first Punisher movie, or stuffing the sides with phonebooks, hit me with your best shot.

Comms guys need to get some ideas about what is the best medium for us. CB seems good for in CONUS, so some kind of a cypher might be needed for security, but I don't really know enough about radios to set a specific goal.

Does anyone have any suggestions for me regarding training and fitness?