Personnel: Private Theo C. Cupier
Serial No: PVT404
Mission Date: 10-11-2517
Mission Codename: N/A
Primary Objectives: Capture/elimination and exploration
Mission Particulars and Outcome: The FEF were sent out in response to the events at the prison (the breakout and surrounding circumstances). We headed out from the bunker on the trail of prisoners with orders to neutralise the problem either through capture or lethal force.
From the outset, armed prisoners were encountered laying in ambush or just chance encounters. Whether this was coincidental or they had inside assistance advising them that a hunter team had been sent, I am unaware. We fought through resistance, recovering a number of items of interest to our more academically minded team members. These team members were invaluable in their knowledge and expertise regarding such things which we common soldiers may have walked right by, though it is worth noting that there were difficulties arising from the composition of the team and these were costly in our ability to maintain combat effectiveness. My recommendations regarding this shall be presented at the close of this report.
We pushed on and came to Outpost 13, a structure which some members of the team were aware of and others not. Indeed, some FEF members were in possession of a code to allow access to this facility. We adopted this as a defensible position after investigation revealed a largely unmolested exterior for fortification purposes and evidence of a prior FEF team presence there.
Various goals were established regarding the outpost and restoring its systems, however the military team members were kept largely in the dark regarding these beyond being allocated to lead or escort teams in pursuit of objectives determined by members of other branches. Information sharing was a clear shortfall in the logistics of the intra-team operations, though this was remedied somewhat as the mission progressed. I am aware of a communications array being fixed and realigned and power being restored to the outpost but am not privy to the particulars of these efforts.
All threats encountered seemed to be human in origin. Prisoners were dealt with, although largely taking them alive was not an option due to their violent responses and unwillingness to come peacefully. A number of members of the ‘Bratva’ were neutralised, although we believe members of their upper leadership escaped before we could break through their dug in lower ranks. Some other arrangement was also reached with a separate, more established group of purportedly non-violent prisoners. Please see the bureaucratic corps for further details.
We made contact with members of primitive surface dwelling tribes who, though initially hostile, were negotiated with and I believe some form of mutual assistance/trade arrangement has been made with the savages. Selling them glass beads in exchange for radioactive fuel sources or some such.
Seemingly the most dangerous threat came from what the primitives know as ‘The Hive’. These are former humans who seem to have been infested by some form of nanite colony which bears resemblance to the ‘zombie plague’ of history. It appears that these nanites have continued to become further corrupted and turned people into what can most easily be described as monsters.
There are definite signs of some sort of shared or commanding group consciousness directing these creatures. Mention was made by members of the science wing of evidence that some of these beings have been ‘alive’ in excess of 450 years. They also seem to fulfil different roles, much like the hive they have been named after, so some are distinct fighters, others possibly workers or gatherers and quite likely other roles which we have yet to encounter.
The most difficult thing to adapt to was that these things have incredible regenerative properties caused by their nanite infestation. Taking massive amounts of damage to stop and in a few cases even recovering from these injuries and springing back to life. The first one of this latter type was encountered by myself and Private Leon and it kept healing grievous wounds, including repeated direct headshots from my sniper rifle, some at as little as 10M range. Strangely, resorting to melee weapons seemed the only effective way to stop it. Dismemberment was the most effective countermeasure. It is notable that we believe these nanite infections to be transmissible, presenting another hazard in dealing with a dangerous enemy.
I heard mentions of the value of these nanites and whether they could be successfully reprogrammed to make use of their regenerative properties while removing the mental and physical degradation side effects. Though I am not a member of any of the academic disciplines and of course will bow to the wisdom of my superiors, I would urge in the strongest terms that no such attempt be made. From a military perspective, having seen the pervasive and hideous nature of this threat, I cannot see any possible positive outcome which outweighs the ramifications of these nanites potentially getting loose within our home.
Effectiveness of the FEF team was not optimal at the outset. Information was not being shared amongst the different branches. The military volunteered what we were privy to, namely the purpose of our mission, but it seemed that other branches all had access to additional information which they declined to make others aware of, and when these things came to light there was no mention of anything being classified or privileged information which would of course have explained this action. Likewise, sharing after action information with others seemed difficult as multiple teams were required and so gathering everyone at one time for mass briefings was an impossibility. We have discussed ways to mitigate this last problem and on our next foray I will be trialling the use of a simple bulletin board system for each team to apprise others of the salient details from any venture by means of a brief written report created and posted on return.
There were disagreements around priorities and distribution/utilisation of resources which I hope to be reflective of a minority of personalities rather than their training. This will be addressed with the team, but a further recommendation will be forthcoming in my close. Essentially, certain people seemed to view grabbing salvage and loot for themselves as their primary aim. I realise we have all been trained on the importance of bringing resources back to the bunker, however these resources appeared to be hoarded by individuals rather than shared to support the mission and for instance, large amounts of salvage were spent potentially wastefully on short term boost projects. Being used as ablative armour to deflect a few shots or providing a power boost to nanites to allow a rifle to produce denser rounds for a few hours. These are fine as tools but such things were being done without any consensus or discussion by people who believed they knew best and had the right to lay claim to these finite resources for their own purposes.
There were other examples of people, when the group was under fire, choosing not to support the military direction but to run off to loot fallen enemies in their rush to claim things as ‘theirs’ while trusting that the soldiers would then recover them, the medics would revive them and they would have their spoils. A particularly poignant example was that when we suffered our one loss of the mission, Private Sellings, his ‘friend’ decided not to carry his corpse back for burial, but to strip it of FEF gear and have Somersby hammer this equipment into some extra armour plates for himself. This same Private also picked up some salvage of significance only to the bureaucratic team and practically had to be ordered by myself to hand it over to them after their polite requests fell on deaf ears.
From a combat perspective, things resolved into a more organised situation as the 48 hour mission window progressed. Primarily due to open discussion with the group as a whole, prompted by myself and Private Quinn, as well as with certain individuals privately about tactics, effectiveness and when to coordinate with the combat trained specialists rather than running off and thinking that your unarmoured, untrained lone pistol wielding charge over open ground will end well.
The method we found most effective in the absence of rank differentials, was to establish the command or decision points for any given situation based on its nature. In anything of an academic nature we would bow to the majority decision of the representatives from that specialty. In a diplomatic situation, we take our cues from the present bureaucrats and when the bullets start flying, people will do as directed by the attendant soldiers. This may seem obvious, however it took some time to get this system in place.
It is worth noting that if this report seems critical, that is not the intent. I am not a man of letters and subtlety in words is not where my training lies. I believe the FEF acted admirably in a dangerous and time sensitive situation and the majority of issues faced qat the outset had been resolved or mitigated before the end of the mission. I focus on areas for learning and improvement solely because these are what will help prepare our and other teams for the future. I will leave any pats on the back to others and just limit myself to saying that I was proud and happy to serve as part of this expeditionary force.
Report ends.
Addendum – Recommendations
Pursuant to the above points, I would like to suggest that as part of future FEF team training, where possible, all members of new teams are brought together as a group for a short period prior to being deployed. Ideally this would be done in a forum with at least one experienced FEF team member present to advise on the realities and challenges of an expedition. A questions, answers, guidance and planning session if you will. This would allow the team to share knowledge and organise themselves before leaving and allow for the more experienced expeditionary members to pass some of that experience on, to the benefit of all parties and the Bunker as a whole.
I would also like to suggest that a standard module be added to basic FEF training on team working skills, project management and cross-discipline collaboration. This could cover such topics as sharing information, especially that which you may take as common knowledge but may in fact be unknown to those outside your specialty. It could also include establishing command structures and systems and the appropriate distribution and utilisation of resources.
The separate wings of the FEF did largely seem to stick to their own circles, which I believe all would agree hindered initial progress. Working well with those outside one’s own discipline and standard sphere of reference is vital to the success of a mixed unit like a FEF. Coming to the surface with these ideas already ingrained rather than having to figure them out under fire and with the hopes of the Bunker in the balance would seem much more practical.
Naturally, as the one proposing these changes, I would be more than happy to put my name forward as a potential candidate for delivering these sessions or modules to trainees. As long as I keep learning enough to continue returning intact from my own expeditions of course.
Pvt. Theo C. Cupier
