Norsesmithy's ZSG/WWZ weapons and tactics analysis.

[Norsesmithy]

Continued from Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863&page=15).

Given the ZSG/WWZ zombie assumptions, I posit that many of the suggestions, recomendations, situations, and events given in the books are faulty, suspect, unlikely, or absurd.

Let us start with the close combat section.

From 5 lb Katana, to Ninjite (:smallconfused: did he mean Ninja Sword? Google returns nothing but hits from an Emo's myspace and youtube accounts), trench spikes, titanium crow bars, and Shaolin Spades, his advice ranges from the silly to the dangerous, and is often self contradictory.

In reverse order.

He advocates the heavy, long, and awkward Shaolin Spade to the survivor on the run, for thrusting at the necks of ghouls, saying the flat cutting edges will easily decapitate your foe. I repeat, a thrust at a neck with an unpointed bit of sharpened metal.

A pointed spear can't be counted on to not stick in the vertebrae, much less a blade with a much higher impact area (and thus reduced impact pressure). If you want to do this, you will NEED to hit a disk, you would have to be Brock Sampson to cut through the bone too.

Next in the list of brilliant is the suggestion that you should use a titanium crow bar to STAB a zombie in the eye.

Let me give you a minute to let that sink in. He wants you to stab them with crowbars.

Oh, sure, you could smack them in the head with crow bars, but remember, you have to crush skull and pulverize brain for that to work, because apparently they are immune to concussion. Which makes your weight saving $160+ titanium crowbar LESS useful than the 12 dollar steel one that is only a pound or two heavier.

The next idea is the trench knife, "without a doubt, the best compact antizombie weapon on earth."

Hold on, You want me to stab something, with a dangerous mouth, in the head, with something that doesn't hardly give me any more reach? It puts your arm in convenient biting position if you fail.

And even if you do penetrate skull, who is to say that a stupid little spike will kill the thing, look at Phineas Gage, for crying out loud.

The obvious use for such an item is peeling a ghoul off of yourself at contact range. But there are much easier, more reliable, and safer ways to deal with a human like creature that doesn't even try to defend itself, but will try to bite you if given the chance.

The main way is to mutilate its motive mechanism. Cut the tendons on the elbow, now he can no longer draw you closer, cut the muscles on the forearm, there goes all of his gripping power.

A regular (if very sharp) knife is a much better bet than trying to go for the kill, when your life is in mortal danger.

Better yet, have a friend watch your back.

Ignoring the ahistorical Japanese Ninjite (whatever it was), and onward to the 5lb katana.

Never mind the a historical weight (he actually says 3 to 5 lb, less unreasonable, but still), but advocates cutting the heads off of zombies, with a katana, as a reasonable way to deal with a zombie attack.

Now I can see there MAYBE being a benefit to having a backup blade in case, for whatever reason you are in a situation where whatever primary weapon you choose is somehow inoperable or unavailable(you really shouldn't let that happen, though, seriously), but choosing a blade that takes up nearly as much space as a rifle and is difficult to use indoors because of its length is going to be a bad idea.

Never mind the idea that this may somehow be adequate as a primary weapon, in leu of a firearm.

I am signing off for the night, and will be back again with another section reviewed tomorrow night, I look forward to your critiques and additions.

[Stupendous_Man]

i think an sks carbine would be nice.

it's a gun, so you can shoot them

it has a bayonet, so you can stab

and it's a russian weapon, so it's heavy enough to use as a club.

[thubby]

fighting a zombie is a losing fight. there is no "good" way to go about it. there are ways that suck slightly less than others, and trying to cut tendons is not one of those slightly less bad ideas. if it's close enough to reach its elbow, its going to be flailing and grabbing you. grabbing your arms, the ones you were going to cut with. in addition to the whole accuracy issue.
cost is irrelevant in an apocalypse. but i agree smashing with a standard on is a better idea.
a knife's combat ability is secondary to its utility. hunting knife, useful for just about anything and decent reach.
a sword isn't a terrible idea. a wakazashi would be better for indoors (that's their purpose after all) and again, cut at the head, not the neck, it's a big target, zombies lead with them, and a combat ready sword would certainly get the job done.
a shotgun is probably a civilian's best option. people suck with guns, fact of life. the average person will hit with 1 in 24 shots at (i think it was) 20 feet with a semi. shotguns its like 1 in 7, they hit hard, wide, and ammo is readily available. even a body shot at close range will leave them in pieces. next comes the nigh-unbreakable AK47
why do they always suggest high power rifles?

[Swordguy]

USAS-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAS-12). Best anti-zombie weapon ever, short of anti-tank-level weapons.

The Saiga-12 is also acceptable - higher reliability vs. lower accuracy.

Or the H&K CAWS...if you can get a copy.

And there's no excuse for using shot with these. You need the penetration and knockdown power of the soft slugs.

[Fri]

Wait, I thought we all agree that boomstick is the way to deal with zombies? You may have your opinions, but I don't want to argue with Ash Williams.

[13_CBS]

Doesn't the Zombie Guide recommend that a semi-automatic, lightweight rifle/carbine is the best way to kill zombies?

[black dragoon]

If readily available. The area where I'm from you have a little in that and it's lot's open terrain. A firearm of any sort is unwieldy in forests unless it's very small in which case I'd rather just carry a good knife or hatchet. There is also the noise factor. Remember Zombies follow sound and scent. If you're firing a gun that will draw a lot of attention. Attention that really can screw up your day. A muscle powered weapon however doesn't have that failing you just need to know where to hit and be able to use it for long durations.

[Dervag]

Wait, I thought we all agree that boomstick is the way to deal with zombies? You may have your opinions, but I don't want to argue with Ash Williams.Yes, which is why Swordguy is trying to find the most effective boomstick available. Something a bit pricier than what you can get at S-Mart.


If readily available. The area where I'm from you have a little in that and it's lot's open terrain. A firearm of any sort is unwieldy in forests unless it's very small in which case I'd rather just carry a good knife or hatchet. There is also the noise factor. Remember Zombies follow sound and scent. If you're firing a gun that will draw a lot of attention. Attention that really can screw up your day. A muscle powered weapon however doesn't have that failing you just need to know where to hit and be able to use it for long durations.Except that, as a practical matter, melee weapons mean you have to let the zombie get close. The advantages of stealth don't overcome the disadvantages of getting into knife range of something with a lethal bite attack.

[black dragoon]

Understood, Though I highly doubt you can find a polearm at your local hardware store.:smallbiggrin:
Another useful weapon particularly if you are very physically strong are limbing axes.(not just because of the name:smalltongue:) These tools are designed to hack off a decent sized tree limb. do the math and if you can get enough arm strength you can stand up against a zombie or two. Also do not forget armor!
Wading into battle in a tee-shirt and jeans is rather stupid then again so is using heavy full plate. look for a comfy medium. Remeber what zones are in risk and cover those with good protective gear. neck guards and something along the line of bracers and pauldrons would be useful. Good durable fiberglass pieces can resist a bite effectively enough to deal a crippling blow. And should be light enough to still move quickly in.

[SurlySeraph]

Brooks's focus on melee weapons strikes me as a Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) thing. While I appreciate his notes on the need for silence, guns are so much more effective and give you so much more progression that they're completely worth it, except perhaps in dense urban areas. In most outdoor areas, relatively low zombie population density and the slowness of zombies would mean that you could always get out of the area before any zombies that heard the shot arrived.

I agree with his recommendation of semiautomatic rifles in open areas. In cities, I'd go with a silenced submachine gun if possible. They're quiet enough to avoid drawing more zombies in (well, at least an MP5 is quiet enough), the lower accuracy and range isn't a big problem because you'll be mostly engaging at relatively close range, and you can take out many targets quickly.


USAS-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAS-12). Best anti-zombie weapon ever, short of anti-tank-level weapons.

The Saiga-12 is also acceptable - higher reliability vs. lower accuracy.

Or the H&K CAWS...if you can get a copy.

And there's no excuse for using shot with these. You need the penetration and knockdown power of the soft slugs.

Oh yes there is. "I have bad aim." The spread makes it hard to miss at close range, and at close enough range the shot will penetrate the skull anyway.

[black dragoon]

Buchshot would have plenty of stopping power close range. Also don't forget Brook's Zombies are killable only through destroying the head. Any good shot will tell the Head is a Hard target especially in a situation when you need to be constantly moving. Franiglble bullets are also handy as they can tear up the muscle rather nicely and at least slow a Zed down for a few seconds as it tries to move with a shredded leg or arm.
Personally I'd carry a mix of weapons and ammo. A standard twelve gauge shotgun can load several types of ammo and is light as far commercial guns go. I'd also have several backup weapon one of which would be A. something that with a enough force can smash a brain to salsa and a backup firearm. More than likely a pistol or revolver. A good sized Mallet would work reasonably well as a finisher if you happen to be a poor shot. That or a well maintained machete.

[Swordguy]

Oh yes there is. "I have bad aim." The spread makes it hard to miss at close range, and at close enough range the shot will penetrate the skull anyway.

Wrong. The spread on shot is vastly overrated. Even with the choke set to max spread, reasonable buckshot (00 buck) is going to have a spread of about 1 foot (tops) at 30 feet. Inside of 10-15 feet, you're looking at one 3-4" wide hole. A max choke setting is 1 inch of spread per yard traveled. You still have to have good aim to hit something with a buckshot-loaded shotgun.

And while buckshot has reasonable stopping power, slug rounds from a 12ga shotgun will tear limbs off of a target. They hit like trucks, mushrooming quickly and increasing the damage channel. The fact that the shotguns I mentioned are all fully automatic weapons means you can fire bursts of shotgun slugs and partially walk your fire onto the target, or tear it apart so badly that it's not gonna matter even if you do miss its head.

[black dragoon]

True but unless you're very strong the recoil will screw up your aim rapidly. A twelve at close range is plenty of killing power for anyone. But, let us not forget one very important thing. Ammo. If you run out of shots your holding a rather expensive club. Carry backups. Like I said carry a mix of ammo and a few backup weapons and a smart reasonably fit individual should survive for at least a few weeks barring starvation or dehydration.

[Dervag]

Wrong. The spread on shot is vastly overrated. Even with the choke set to max spread, reasonable buckshot (00 buck) is going to have a spread of about 1 foot (tops) at 30 feet. Inside of 10-15 feet, you're looking at one 3-4" wide hole. A max choke setting is 1 inch of spread per yard traveled. You still have to have good aim to hit something with a buckshot-loaded shotgun.

And while buckshot has reasonable stopping power, slug rounds from a 12ga shotgun will tear limbs off of a target. They hit like trucks, mushrooming quickly and increasing the damage channel. The fact that the shotguns I mentioned are all fully automatic weapons means you can fire bursts of shotgun slugs and partially walk your fire onto the target, or tear it apart so badly that it's not gonna matter even if you do miss its head.And, if you really want to, you can always call it Vera.


True but unless you're very strong the recoil will screw up your aim rapidly. A twelve at close range is plenty of killing power for anyone. But, let us not forget one very important thing. Ammo. If you run out of shots your holding a rather expensive club. Carry backups. Like I said carry a mix of ammo and a few backup weapons and a smart reasonably fit individual should survive for at least a few weeks barring starvation or dehydration.Backup weapons that fire ammunition are arguably a waste of effort, because each round you carry for your 9mm pistol is a round you could be carrying for your semiautomatic carbine or 12-gauge shotgun. This is why most real-world soldiers do not carry a backup sidearm.

Backup melee weapons are very much a 'last ditch' option for antizombie defense, because it would be very difficult to kill a zombie safely using one. You're better off relying on comrades who can cover you while you reload your gun, and on simply retreating if your ammunition is running low.

Only armies should ever be in a situation where they need to fire as much ammunition as they could reasonably carry. If you're not an army, you should not allow yourself to end up in such a position. With zombies, escape is not difficult as long as you're not surrounded, so you don't have to allow that to happen. If you are surrounded, you would be wise to be in a stronghold, in which case you are not limited by the ammunition you can carry.

[black dragoon]

Sorry, I've been running generally a single scenario in my head. Primarily being stuck in the Northeast of the U.S. Where you effectively have large areas of wilderness and small but dense areas habitation. In this situation A 9mm becomes a handy hunting implement as well. That and if you're not careful you easily can stumble upon areas where you can be vastly outnumbered quickly. The terrain where I'm from is also not forgiving upon anything,machinery that gets damaged you normally are better off just leaving and moving on. A holstered weapon also has the advantage of being protected from dirt and snow which can be fatal and caused by simple trip on the ground. The hilly terrain also lends itself to the need of secondary smaller firearm do to the constant hassle of forests where trying to quickly move at any time of day is difficult and hazardous. Trust me, falling in some of these places is a very bad idea. You also may have to deal swamps crossing fences that guns can easily snag on and any number other joys that can prove to be lethal in the right situation.

[Eldan]

My main problem would be that firearms are hard to get around here. Apart from army weapons (and about 50% of all males are in the army for some time), where you get an assault rifle and no ammunation, I've never seen a gun in my life. Also, no weapon shops.
Therefore, I'd have to rely on other people who were in the army (none of my friends were) and somehow managed to get ammunation. We have a very large axe, though (About 1.20 meters long). I'd use that. Also, if you manage to reach the mountains, there are practiacally bunkers everywhere. Some of them still fully stocked from the cold war.

[black dragoon]

Try getting into one of those though. THey were designed to hold weapons and keep em there. If you get into one just stay there and set up shop.

[13_CBS]

The Zombie Guide also mentions that steel armors, such as maille and even plate, are useless against zombies because they will "bite through them" anyway. That...doesn't sound very plausible to me. I have difficulty imagining the human jaw being capable of tearing through steel and 40 layers of protective cloth, even if zombie powered and immune to pain.

[black dragoon]

IT's the joints in the armor they can get at. Sharksuits would work as well as the aforementioned Durable light armor. Riot shields are also handy.:smallsmile:

[Mr. Scaly]

Huh...I would think that arms are the worst problem with zombies. Without the grapple they'd have a tougher time biting.

[black dragoon]

The previously mentioned use of bracers made of durable and strong plastic apparently was missed. Cover the fleshy portions of your body and areas that obviously biteable. Neck guards arm covers and leg covers made of light durable plastic like PVC may be you best bet if you have to cobble armor together which is most likely the case.

[Swordguy]

IT's the joints in the armor they can get at. Sharksuits would work as well as the aforementioned Durable light armor. Riot shields are also handy.:smallsmile:

Plate armor with gussets would do nicely, and be essentially impervious to human biting forces (or several times human bite force). Or, as mentioned, ice hockey pads would help a lot (but not give as much coverage). They wouldn't weigh as much, though.

[black dragoon]

There is the mobility issue as well. A dozen zombies will eventually get that armor off you especially if you can't run away fast in loud hot and heavy armor.

[Dervag]

My main problem would be that firearms are hard to get around here. Apart from army weapons (and about 50% of all males are in the army for some time), where you get an assault rifle and no ammunation, I've never seen a gun in my life. Also, no weapon shops.
Therefore, I'd have to rely on other people who were in the army (none of my friends were) and somehow managed to get ammunation. We have a very large axe, though (About 1.20 meters long). I'd use that. Also, if you manage to reach the mountains, there are practiacally bunkers everywhere. Some of them still fully stocked from the cold war.In Switzerland, your best bet is probably to count on the army. The country is relatively small and there's a large force of military reservists. In the event of a small zombie outbreak, you just run. In the event of a major one, the nation mobilizes and Switzerland will probably have enough firepower to clear its own territory.

Unless you get invaded by swarms of French, German, and Italian zombies. But I'm sure Switzerland has plenty of experience with tourist season. :smallwink:


The Zombie Guide also mentions that steel armors, such as maille and even plate, are useless against zombies because they will "bite through them" anyway. That...doesn't sound very plausible to me. I have difficulty imagining the human jaw being capable of tearing through steel and 40 layers of protective cloth, even if zombie powered and immune to pain.They'd break their teeth.


Huh...I would think that arms are the worst problem with zombies. Without the grapple they'd have a tougher time biting.I'd imagine so. Of course, zombies with open wounds can be dangerous too, because of infected body fluids.


There is the mobility issue as well. A dozen zombies will eventually get that armor off you especially if you can't run away fast in loud hot and heavy armor.If you're in good physical condition, you can definitely keep up a brisk walk in plate armor for quite a long while. But yes, for cross country work it has drawbacks. Unless you have a horse...

[Texas_Ben]

Chiming in on the "firearms vs melee" issue:
When you want to hit at range but don't want to make a lot of noise, the ideal option is, of course, a crossbow or regular bow of some sort. Granted you will pretty much have to get the headshot if you go for that which does limit you to relatively close ranges (say 10 yards-20 feet or so), I'd rather engage a zombie at 10 yards than up close and personal.

Also the Bow/Crossbow is the ideal weapon for the long haul--that is, if this is a worldwide zombie apocalypse as opposed to a regional infestation. Ammunition, while plentiful, is of a limited quantity, and once your stocks are depleted you are forced to either abandon your stronghold to seek out new stores, or, well, not have ammo. Bows and Crossbows, on the other hand, offer the attractive options of reusable ammunition, and relative ease of construction for new bolts/arrows... admittedly not of the same quality, but probrably effective enough.

If you're not terribly interested in mobility, a large tank of gasoline + duct tape + cigarette lighter + power washer == instant flamethrower of DOOM, although as power washers are quite bulky you'll be stationary while using it. The same effect can be had with a Super Soaker, but obviously much less impressive. I've also seen youtube videos of people repurposing fire extinguishers to be flame throwers, but I wouldn't even begin to know how to do that, though if it was an option doing that would be ideal-- mobility *and* range.

As for Melee weaponry, if it comes down to it I think that the spear is an attractive option... the long pole gives you a bit of reach. Now I know what you're going to say "BUT WAIT! The spear will get stuck in the ribcage!" That is why you use the spear's long haft to knock their legs out from under them (zombies are not renowned for their balance), and then drive the spiked end into their head while they are down.

Alternatively, an entrenchment tool such as you would find at an army surplus store or somesuch would also make a fine melee weapon. They are balanced and light enough to wield comfortably with one hand, but still pretty hefty... I imagine they would pack quite a punch if you ground and edge onto them and sharpened it. I think I read somewhere that it was popular in WWI for troops to sharpen their entrenchment tools, the resultant melee weapon being ferociously efficient in trench-fighting.

And as far as protection goes, hardened leather should be adequate... I recommend hardened leather because it is rediculously easy to fashion well-fitting bracers/pauldrons/greaves out of leather, something not as easily said about materials such as PVC or ABS. Not to mention walking around in leather is badass and walking around in PVC is just a little silly.

[black dragoon]

True, I have been running the scenario as basically on the move or you're dead.
I chose PVC for availability more than anything. Quality leather is rather hard to find and the skill for shaping it beyond say an apron is fairly rare as far as I know. A spear's fine if you are stationed somewhere defensible but as for on the move give a good ol' fashioned hatchet or bowie knife.:smallwink:

[Texas_Ben]

True, I have been running the scenario as basically on the move or you're dead.
I chose PVC for availability more than anything. Quality leather is rather hard to find and the skill for shaping it beyond say an apron is fairly rare as far as I know. A spear's fine if you are stationed somewhere defensible but as for on the move give a good ol' fashioned hatchet or bowie knife.:smallwink:
Actually shaping leather into Bracers is fairly easy. I used to have several rather good tutorials for leather armor saved, though not on this machine. A few minutes of googling found me This (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Armour/Making_Period_Leather_Armour), though I will try and dig up the old ones which actually detail the process in... well, in detail.

Ehh I still stand by the sharpened entrenchment tool. It is lighter and much less unwieldy than the hatchet, and longer than the knife. By virtue of it's T-shaped handle you can also hold it and swing it out straight from your arm as opposed to at a 90 degree angle as with most melee weapons, so you get even more reach.

also, something I just thought of-- If you can teach yourself how to use a lasoo, it would be incredibly useful. Drag the zomby to the ground, and have your buds beat the **** out of him. Granted it's only useful in open areas, but hey. Lasooing zombies is badass too.

[black dragoon]

And that is why your Texas Ben. Though admittedly it is badass.
THe Hatchet is personal choice and utility. I need to be able to hack apart limbs where I am. I need fire wood for me it's more practicale.

[Dervag]

If you're not terribly interested in mobility, a large tank of gasoline + duct tape + cigarette lighter + power washer == instant flamethrower of DOOM, although as power washers are quite bulky you'll be stationary while using it. The same effect can be had with a Super Soaker, but obviously much less impressive. I've also seen youtube videos of people repurposing fire extinguishers to be flame throwers, but I wouldn't even begin to know how to do that, though if it was an option doing that would be ideal-- mobility *and* range.As Brooks observes, a flamethrower is of limited use against a zombie because it takes too long for them to burn to death. It will reliably destroy zombies, and do so cleanly. But it will not stop them from lurching towards you while on fire. I, for one, would prefer not to compound the danger of zombie attack with the danger of being set on fire.


As for Melee weaponry, if it comes down to it I think that the spear is an attractive option... the long pole gives you a bit of reach. Now I know what you're going to say "BUT WAIT! The spear will get stuck in the ribcage!" That is why you use the spear's long haft to knock their legs out from under them (zombies are not renowned for their balance), and then drive the spiked end into their head while they are down.More of a problem- the spear will get stuck in the skull. Unless I am much mistaken, almost any melee weapon used to penetrate the skull has a good chance of sticking. Crushing attacks are probably better, since they will reliably cause massive brain damage (a spike through the brain may not kill you), and since they aren't likely to get stuck.


Alternatively, an entrenchment tool such as you would find at an army surplus store or somesuch would also make a fine melee weapon. They are balanced and light enough to wield comfortably with one hand, but still pretty hefty... I imagine they would pack quite a punch if you ground and edge onto them and sharpened it. I think I read somewhere that it was popular in WWI for troops to sharpen their entrenchment tools, the resultant melee weapon being ferociously efficient in trench-fighting.Yes, but those weapons relied on the assumption that people would stop fighting if you stabbed them in the guts or cut into their arm to the bone with a shovel. Zombies won't stop trying to bite you unless you wreck their brain, which makes them a lot more resistant to melee attacks of any kind. Of course, unlike human combatants they aren't actively trying to defend themselves, but that only helps you so much. Also, if you engage one zombie in close combat, you greatly increase the odds you'll be attacked by other zombies nearby.


also, something I just thought of-- If you can teach yourself how to use a lasoo, it would be incredibly useful. Drag the zomby to the ground, and have your buds beat the **** out of him. Granted it's only useful in open areas, but hey. Lasooing zombies is badass too.I still say shooting them is better. Especially in open areas, where you have room to escape if a bunch of zombies hear the shot and start shambling over.

[thubby]

armor beyond the extremities seems rather pointless. it's weight, and if you get caught, even if they can't bite you, you go nowhere. zombies don't get bored to my knowledge.
bows are hard to use, much less in a real fight, are large, and physically demanding. crossbows are very hard to find; and they both have issue with head shots. if you need to shoot a zombie, you already got noticed. and beyond close range, a shot is hard to track by ear.
for that matter, functional munitions are not too difficult to make.

[Texas_Ben]

As Brooks observes, a flamethrower is of limited use against a zombie because it takes too long for them to burn to death. It will reliably destroy zombies, and do so cleanly. But it will not stop them from lurching towards you while on fire. I, for one, would prefer not to compound the danger of zombie attack with the danger of being set on fire.
An excellent point.


Yes, but those weapons relied on the assumption that people would stop fighting if you stabbed them in the guts or cut into their arm to the bone with a shovel. Zombies won't stop trying to bite you unless you wreck their brain, which makes them a lot more resistant to melee attacks of any kind. Of course, unlike human combatants they aren't actively trying to defend themselves, but that only helps you so much. Also, if you engage one zombie in close combat, you greatly increase the odds you'll be attacked by other zombies nearby. True, true, although a sharpened entrenchment spade will do quite a number on any limbs you hit. My main attraction to the spade is it's reach and ease of use when compared to say a hatchet, despite being the same size.


I still say shooting them is better. Especially in open areas, where you have room to escape if a bunch of zombies hear the shot and start shambling over.
You're right, of course, but my suggestions of lasoo and crossbow were more directed towards the melee apologists--the ones who were saying that guns are a bad idea because zombies are drawn to sound. The crossbow or lasoo is for when you don't feel like making a ruckus, but also don't feel like getting into a melee tussle with a zombie.

I imagine pit traps with spikes could be used to great effect as well, assuming you are left unmolested for a day or two to dig a few trenches and place a few stakes. Barbed wire, too, would make for a good delaying tactic... they get all tangled up in it, making for easy hits on them with the firearm of your choice.

[Texas_Ben]

bows are hard to use, much less in a real fight, are large, and physically demanding. crossbows are very hard to find; and they both have issue with head shots. if you need to shoot a zombie, you already got noticed.
The idea isn't so much not getting noticed, the idea is to get rid of the zombie who noticed you without alerting any additional zombies to your presence.

[thubby]

The idea isn't so much not getting noticed, the idea is to get rid of the zombie who noticed you without alerting any additional zombies to your presence.

from my understanding, when 1 takes notice enough to lurch after you, they are rarely the only one to have done so, and they all follow anyway.
but again, you think you can kill it with a bow that quickly? seems more likely you would hit it again and make it run after you

[Texas_Ben]

but again, you think you can kill it with a bow that quickly? seems more likely you would hit it again and make it run after you
I'm assuming a range of, at most 15 feet or so. You'd have to hit it in the head to kill it, so I'd want to make sure I got it the first time. And with a bow you can reload on the run, so you should be able to make a decent accounting for yourself.
If it was down to either using a knife or a bow, I think I'd opt for the bow, is all I'm saying.

[thubby]

I'm assuming a range of, at most 15 feet or so. You'd have to hit it in the head to kill it, so I'd want to make sure I got it the first time. And with a bow you can reload on the run, so you should be able to make a decent accounting for yourself.
If it was down to either using a knife or a bow, I think I'd opt for the bow, is all I'm saying.

granted, but this is about gun v bow, carrying both is impractical at best. reloading while moving is incredibly difficult.
being careful doesn't change the fact that it is a feat for modern archery masters to hit melons at comparable ranges when given time. bows are hard to shoot.

[Dervag]

The idea isn't so much not getting noticed, the idea is to get rid of the zombie who noticed you without alerting any additional zombies to your presence.Given that Brooks zombies have an excellent sense of smell, and that if the zombie sees you it will start moaning and drawing zombies in any case, that's tricky.

Of course, feeding groans probably won't carry as far as a gunshot, I grant you.

It's just that except in the specific case where you're up against a "lone sentry" zombie*, a melee weapon is vastly inferior to a firearm. If you get cornered, then unless you're a legendary badass you won't cut your way free with a melee weapon. If you don't get cornered, you should be able to escape the zombies attracted by the sound of your gunshots.

*Yes, I know, it's not really a sentry, but it acts like one because of the way it behaves.

In the "lone sentry" scenario, the silence of the melee weapon is worth something useful, I'll grant you. But it's not worth enough to plan your main antizombie defense against it. The best defense against being bitten by a rabid animal is to never get anywhere near its teeth, and the same goes for hypothetical zombie attacks.


but again, you think you can kill it with a bow that quickly? seems more likely you would hit it again and make it run after youIf I understood the Guide correctly, hitting a Brooks zombie won't make it notice you if it hadn't already done so.


granted, but this is about gun v bow, carrying both is impractical at best. reloading while moving is incredibly difficult.
being careful doesn't change the fact that it is a feat for modern archery masters to hit melons at comparable ranges when given time. bows are hard to shoot.Hitting a melon at a range of 50 to 100 feet is trivial for a 'master' archer. It's at long ranges where projectile drop becomes a major concern that things get trickier.

A rifle is better than a bow if you want to kill zombies from long range. A carbine or some such is better for killing large numbers of zombies at medium range. But a bow or crossbow has the enormous advantage of being silent (and legal in the US, avoiding any trouble with the police, whereas silenced firearms are not).

Putting an arrow into a zombie brain would not be that challenging at relatively short ranges. And if you start pelting the zombie with arrows that miss, it's most likely to get confused about the arrow impacts, not to backtrack the arrows to the source. It's not smart enough to understand the significance of someone throwing rocks at it.

[13_CBS]

There is the mobility issue as well. A dozen zombies will eventually get that armor off you especially if you can't run away fast in loud hot and heavy armor.

Which is why you wear that stuff while zombie hunting well within your headquarters. :smallbiggrin:

[Texas_Ben]

granted, but this is about gun v bow, carrying both is impractical at best. reloading while moving is incredibly difficult.
being careful doesn't change the fact that it is a feat for modern archery masters to hit melons at comparable ranges when given time. bows are hard to shoot.
We're clearly talking about two different things.

My recommendation of the bow is in response to those people earlier in the thread who endorse melee weapons because of their silence. I am saying that if you wish to be silent, a bow is preferable because your risk of being bitten is minimal compared to melee combat. So no, this is not about gun v bow, its about bow v knife or bow v hatchet.

And I'm not talking about using it at "comparable ranges" I'm talking about using them, as per my post, at extremely short ranges where head shots are actually feasible.

[black dragoon]

I have to point out one more fact about the Bow. Regular recurve bows take incredibly large amounts of force to achieve sufficient velocity to pierce something like bone or a head, at close range this isn't as much of a problem However the best bow for such a task will be a modern compound bow using blossoming arrows. The original intent of these arrows is to hook into target making them very hard to remove and painful to boot. However the secret is that the prongs of these arrows blossom outward snagging themselves. In a brain you can imagine the collateral damage this could create. Possibly allowing for a one shot kill if aimed right. As to using a hatchet I previously stated it's about versatility as well. Show a me a bow that can cut down a branch?

[Texas_Ben]

Oh I'm not denying the hatchet's usefulness as a tool, but they are quite unwieldy. As a matter of personal taste I would use a different weapon in melee.

Another less-than-ideal but still possible option for silent ranged combat would be a slingshot. Not terribly effective but multiple hits could still destroy a zombie, the primary advantages being high rate of fire compared to a bow and the fact that *anything* is ammunition for it.
==========

Diverging from previous discussion for a moment, since I love thinking up crazy improvised weaponry (which you can probably tell from the rest of this thread).

Weld a length of chain to a shot you salvage from a sporting goods store-- you now have a metal ball several kilos in weight on a length of chain. Not good in tight quarters, but in an open area you can most likely wreck zombies with it... after all, once you get it spinning it's going to be moving pretty fast, and deal a lot of damage to whatever it hits. In this case, a zombies head.
Of course using it would be tiring since it has to be kept swinging to keep up the velocity.

[black dragoon]

I know the principles behind what you're saying. A sling would be my preferred weapon primarily thanks to the abundance of rocks. :smallbiggrin:
The ball and chain be rather useful as a way to keep some space and prevent contact with the zeds, It'd be a good weapon till it tangled on something.

[13_CBS]

Isn't the main advantage of a flail its ability to reach around shields and other defenses? If reach is your concern, why not just get a mace with a longer shaft?

[Texas_Ben]

Someone needs to hurry up and invent the gravity gun already. That way any zombie problem can be solved with a few heavy-duty circular saw blades.

[Texas_Ben]

Isn't the main advantage of a flail its ability to reach around shields and other defenses? If reach is your concern, why not just get a mace with a longer shaft?
The main advantage of the fail is that it is a huge metal ball swinging at high speed ready to impart a whole lot of energy into whatever it hits. In this case, zombie heads. Recall that the objective is to mess up the brains as quick as possible, and I can think of few better ways to to than than by smashing them all to hell. To use it you'd have to be swinging it in a horizontal arc around your head so you could probably chain hits with it too. Of course if you really want overkill I suppose you could fashion a makeshift black powder cannon and fire the shotputs out of that instead.

For that matter, now that I think of it, Pirates are the best-equipped to handle zombies. They live on boats, which are troublesome for zombies to raid. They wield muskets, the balls of which are quite large and would certainly mess zombies up. They are good at smashing things, and they have lots of cannons.
Prevent zombie apocalypse. Become a pirate today.

[13_CBS]

The main advantage of the fail is that it is a huge metal ball swinging at high speed ready to impart a whole lot of energy into whatever it hits.


...which can be more easily achieved with a mace, or more cheaply achieved with a crowbar. :smallconfused:

[Eldan]

Also, they carry sabers, cutlasses and daggers, which make good melee weapons to cut them to pieces.
Hmm... that really gives me a campaign idea... the continent is overrun by zombies, the only survivors being pirates constantly traveling along the coast, only landing for quick supply raids.

[black dragoon]

There's a web comic like that google Zombie Hunters sometime. Hrm...So pirates will survive...I should buy an abandoned Oil Rig and turn it into the ultimate Zombie-Proof fortress:smallbiggrin:

[13_CBS]

Also, they carry sabers, cutlasses and daggers, which make good melee weapons to cut them to pieces.
Hmm... that really gives me a campaign idea... the continent is overrun by zombies, the only survivors being pirates constantly traveling along the coast, only landing for quick supply raids.

Add in a rival ninja faction (a clan with roots in conflicts stretching back to the Sengoku Jidai), plus another faction of combat robots gone rampant after their human masters perished, and you get...

[black dragoon]

Rifts?:smallwink:

[chiasaur11]

Well, at least one ninja like faction kept the zombie threat extinct in Japan for centuries.

The brotherhood of life.

On the other hand, a lot of pirates got et.

Ah, the historical cases at the end of the zombie survival guide, how we love you.

[Dervag]

The main advantage of the fail is that it is a huge metal ball swinging at high speed ready to impart a whole lot of energy into whatever it hits. In this case, zombie heads. Recall that the objective is to mess up the brains as quick as possible, and I can think of few better ways to to than than by smashing them all to hell. To use it you'd have to be swinging it in a horizontal arc around your head so you could probably chain hits with it too.The problem is that the ball and chain does not provide you with a lot of the things you need in your weapon:
________________________

You need distance control. A big heavy ball on the end of a chain only threatens enemies at a very specific distance: the length of the chain. If the zombie is slightly too far away when you make your swing you're in trouble, and if they're slightly too close you will risk losing a lot of the desired effect. Distance control is critical in any kind of battle, and especially important when fighting something like a zombie. Against a zombie, you're holding all the cards at a range of more than one meter or so. That's where you want to be.

You need precision. You want to reliably hit the zombie in the head, not the shoulder. The neck is an acceptable target because the chain stands at least a decent chance of snapping the neck when the ball hits it. The shoulder or ribcage is not. Balls on chains are not precise.

You need a weapon that you can use reliably, in a large fraction of the cases where you might need a weapon. The ball and chain is worse than useless except in spaces that are very open. Any obstacle means you cannot swing the ball in a circle, which makes the weapon largely ineffective.
__________________________

You need a weapon that you can use as part of a group. Operating alone you are liable to be killed by the zombies no matter what you're armed with. You have to sleep some time. You need people keeping watch for zombies approaching from directions you aren't looking in. You need people to help you carry specialized equipment that improves the survival chances of the whole group.

A group of people with firearms or ordinary melee weapons can defend each other against attacks from unexpected directions. With guns, ask Swordguy about MOUT for examples of how this works. With melee weapons, you can use the simple example of two warriors fighting back to back, or mor complicated tactics like those of the Roman maniple.

A group of people armed with balls on chains cannot defend each other in this way, because they must stand far apart. They need enough space between them that their chains cannot get entangled. If anyone's weapon gets stopped, his friends will not be able to support him safely, because anyone who gets close enough to cover him might hit him with their own weapon. Each individual is fairly safe as long as they can keep their ball swinging, but there's no advantage of mutual protection because everyone has to stay out of range of everyone else.
_________________________

You need a weapon you can use whenever it is needed, and suddenly if you need it in a hurry. You need a weapon that allows you to control the flow of combat by deciding when and where to strike. If you need to retreat, you should be able to do so without completely dropping your guard.

The ball and chain absolutely requires a long time to wind up and a long time to wind down. It is ineffective unless you keep it spinning. Spinning a heavy iron ball on the end of a chain will place great demands on your stamina and strength. You risk injuring yourself if you start to tire. You can't use the ball and chain to defend yourself for long periods of time, because you have to exert the same amount of effort to keep the ball spinning whether you're being attacked or not.

You will not be able to move quickly while swinging the chain, so zombies will be able to catch up with you while you are delayed in fighting the zombies near you. If the ball stops in a zombie, any other zombies will be in a position to attack you before you can get it spinning again.

You will not be able to move into closed spaces while using the ball to defend yourself. You must stand or die out in the open, with no possibility of retreating into a building, or through terrain with obstacles. In order to move through such spaces, you have to completely abandon your defense. If a zombie surprises you, you may not be able to get your weapon ready before they are in grappling range.
____________________________


Of course if you really want overkill I suppose you could fashion a makeshift black powder cannon and fire the shotputs out of that instead. Makeshift blackpowder cannons explode. A lot. You'd probably be more effective with an actual rifle, and the gun would be cheaper and possible to carry without a team of horses.

[Texas_Ben]

There's a web comic like that google Zombie Hunters sometime. Hrm...So pirates will survive...I should buy an abandoned Oil Rig and turn it into the ultimate Zombie-Proof fortress:smallbiggrin:
For bonus points, have it double as a zeppelin port. With the union of air pirates AND sea pirates, the zombies might as well give up.

Although pirates fighting zombies *does* lead to the problem of escalation... Anti-zombie pirates leads to things like zombie pirates, zombie sharks, zombie octopus, and zombie colossal squid. And lets face it, that is just downright terrifying.

[warty goblin]

i think an sks carbine would be nice.

it's a gun, so you can shoot them

it has a bayonet, so you can stab

and it's a russian weapon, so it's heavy enough to use as a club.

The SKS is a nice choice, although it does have some downsides. The first is that it is loaded via stripper clips, which are difficult to transport and slow to load (and can also jam if you screw up), and on top of that only has a ten round magazine out of the factory. On the other hand they are pretty accurate (the guy I know who owns one can cap a small oxygen tank from a hundred feet), and in all the times I've seen him use it it has never jammed, except when loading, in which case clearing it was pretty fast. I bet I've seen him fire well over a hundred and fifty rounds off as well, which, compared to his M4 is an improvement of several orders of magnitude. The other downside is that because it uses Soviet ammo it's not the most common thing around the U.S., although obviously if you are in the former Soviet territories this would be an advantage.

For melee I'd actually want two readily available weapons- a pitchfork and a machette. The machette is easier to swing than a hatchet, and if you catch something on all five tines of the 'fork it ain't goin' anywhere in a hurry, giving your allies more than enough time to flank it and kill it.

[Texas_Ben]

if you catch something on all five tines of the 'fork it ain't goin' anywhere in a hurry

This strikes me as less of a selling point and more of an "on crap my weapon is stuck in this zombie there are 2 more coming" type of thing.

[freerangetroll]

You would really need three weapons to be effective for overall Zombie fighting. The way I would set it up would be a ranged weapon, preferably a hunting rifle or shotgun, a melee weapon that allows you to keep distance or pin a zombie if it comes to it. Modified short spear with a cross guard so the bugger can't haul himself up the shaft at you, and then a machete for when you have to do some up close and personal work.

As far as protective clothing or armor goes. Ideally you would want some nice sculpted leather for ease of movement and protection. However, depending on the area you live in ( I'm lucky, I happen to live pretty close to an old school tannery that actually produces working leather armor for collectors/SCA types), you would probably have to go with some form of sports padding/heavy duty flexi plastic and jury rig it to allow movement and offer protection.

[black dragoon]

Well let's do a rundown of what each would bring and compare then. We each are going to have different equipment sets due to region of origin so I'll go first.
North-Eastern United states: Terrain moderate hills and valleys. Pockets of towns of roughly a hundred or higher. Heavily forested in many sections and prone to hazardous weather in the winter.

My Equipment:
Long range weapon: preferably a decent rifle of American manufacture, more than likely a standard 12 gauge shotgun with ammo cocktail at disposal.
My 'Pinner': A modified pitchfork more than likely three tongs to allow for a shaft guard. That or heavily modified tree limber( basically a small saw onn a stick) due to a more durable metal handle.
Finisher, utility weapon: Either a Small hatchet to allow for multitasking or machete that has been modified for ease of use and to withstand the constant beating of hacking through tree limbs.
Alrght there's my list who's next?:smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Switzerland:
Terrains: mostly hills and some woods. About one to two days on foot to the mountains from here, I'd guess. More if you have to fight your way through.

Now, I won't be able to get my hands on firearms myself, so I'll go with what I have in the house:

My Equipment:
Range Weapon: Longbow. I'm not that good with it, but better than nothing
Pinner: Difficult. I'd probably get a scythe from one of the farmers and hammer it into a weapon. (Yes, a scythe is a pretty useless weapon, normally, the blade's sharpened on the wrong side.)
Short range: Heavy Axe.

Yeah, I'd probably be screwed. On the other hand, I could probably make explosives if you give me two hours and a drugstore.

[black dragoon]

Screw the drugstore just borrow somethings off your local modern dairy farm.( anyone using pesticides and fertilizers will do) And Beeline for the mountains.

[Eldan]

Hey, I study biology, not chemistry :smallwink: I had a few courses in the lab and could brew something together, but I don't even know what they put in pesticides. Also, all the farmers round here grow apples only. Well, all the more reason to have pesticides.

[black dragoon]

There are certain ferilizers that can have very voilent reactions not to mention any industrial strength cleaning agents will rapidly corrode tissue. I'm ag-biotech major myself. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Ah, yes. Science and explosions. The way to go against zombies:smallbiggrin:

[black dragoon]

To true. A excellent trap is a simple bucket filled a cocktail of corrosive akalines and whatnots. The result I can imagine is not a pretty sight. Many modernized farms keep very dangerous chemicals nearby. Worse comes to worse just lure the zeds to one and torch it. The fire mixed with the random explosions should at least make them immobile.

[Texas_Ben]

Equipment list for me, Norteastern US... rural/suburban area:


Shotgun (slug ammunition, of course)
Composite Bow
Spear-like weapon (not actually a spear though... I want something with a long but lightweight haft I can use to knock them over with, and a very heavy spike on the other end to knock their brain in. Spears tend to be more balanced than such a weapon)
Sharpened entrenchment tool (one of the kind that has a shovel and a spike on it).


^^The above is assuming I am "on-the-move", traveling by foot. However, such an assumption is not a good one, since I would make building a stronghold top priority. Said stronghold would consist of:

An outer trench several feet wide and 7-8 feet deep, with wooden stakes at the bottom (that would be a pain to dig so it would actually be the last part to get constructed
thick rolls of barbed wire, followed by barbed wire stretched out along the ground in a grid pattern-- won't actually kill zombies, but it'll tangle them up real good... easy to shoot them then
Barricade, probably wood... shipping pallets the most likely option.

Said obstacles would protect a small area, maybe large enough for a few tents and a pile of supplies. It would, of course, be located in a field, so that you can see the zombies coming.

[Norsesmithy]

Sorry this post is so late in coming, but the pistol combat course I took yesterday went way later than planned, and I went straight to bed with no supper, I was so tired.

Onward to ranged weapons.

From the top, the ones that grab me are
Shuriken and throwing knives, supposedly masters of the art can get them to penetrate skulls, not merely stick in them.

Crossbows, apparently silent and head shot accurate to more than a quarter mile.

SAWs are Heavy Machine Guns, and all HMGs are useless.

SMGs are handier than carbines, and don't reliably go bang.

M16A1s are the worst rifle ever fielded, with a spring loaded stock, that breaks when struck, a sight that takes too long to adjust (because, apparently, you need to adjust your sight between shots), is too easy to set to Full Auto, and apparently lacks a bayonet. The VC also never used them when they captured them. Newer models are scarcely improved.

The AK 47 is significantly more reliable than the M16, doesn't jam in sand, and has a stronger buttstock than the M16.

Shotguns posses "Stopping power, the scattering shot forms a solid wall."

Pistols, Not much about this section is completely wrong, but it certainly doesn't tell the whole story.

.22s ricochet off the inside of the skull, doing more damage than a heavier, faster round.

Laser sights are easy to use, how hard is it to place a dot on a ghouls forehead? The only problem is battery life.

Explosives like grenades have a poor chance of penetrating the skull.

And Flame throwers are Illegal, and kill very slowly

From the Bottom.

Flame throwers are considered agricultural equipment, and before the supply ran out, you used to be able to buy surplus Russian Flame throwers at Tractor Supply or Mills Fleet Farm (or any number of other feed mills and stores that specialized in serving farmers), and you can make one yourself quite easily (I did, once upon a time). Having said that, they are a poor choice, as Max pointed out they are bulky, heavy, and dangerous. However, they wouldn't turn zombies into shambling torches like he suggested. The 50/50 mix of 110 octane aviation fuel and diesel that most surplus flame throwers drink burns very very hot, and would destroy the flesh it was splashed on in 10-15 seconds. Meaning the legs of a Zombie you hit in the lower body would cease to function (dropping him into the fire), or the brains of zombie you got in the upper body would be cooked, re-killing him.

The shrapnel from a grenade has more penetrating power than any handgun, it will pierce bone, and the odds of a piece of shrapnel hitting the skull, from a nearby grenade are actually quite high. And even when that doesn't happen, the odds of a spinal wound are very high as well, and that can be nearly as good.

Laser sights are not point and shoot tools, they are slower and harder to use than irons, never mind a proper scope, red dot, or holographic sight. Their battery life is excellent, however. Many models advertise battery lives so long that by the time the CR2032s in the sight die, you are due to replace them because they have reached their expiration date.

No coroner has ever reported the oft posed ricocheting .22 effect, because it simply doesn't happen. Not to mention that if you don't get a hit in the ocular cavity, a .22lr will most likely not penetrate the skull, even if fired out of a long barrel.

Pistols. Well, it is kinda complicated. It is difficult to penetrate a skull with a handgun unless you shoot them in the ocular cavity (or at sub 5 yards range), unless you are using a gun that shoots big and heavy bullets (230 grain or larger). For some reason, the penetration of a round goes up faster in relation to bullet weight, than it does in relation to bullet velocity. And even then, they are not as accurate as a rifle. BUT, if you train with the weapon, as Max suggests, getting a fair percentage of head shots, on a moving target, while moving yourself, is entirely possible. Handguns are not rifles when it comes to range, ease of use, or lethality, but it is my opinion that someone who gets training with his pistol is not going to find it, or himself, lacking, especially if he is only trying to preserve himself while evading and escaping. If I was given a choice between my Kimber Warrior, and my Mossberg 500, or some other non-removable-mag long-arm, I would probably choose the Kimber. If I were given my Kimber and my scoped hunting rifle, I would consider the Kimber my primary, and the scoped rifle an auxiliary. Having said that, if the dead ever rise, I plan on using my AR as my primary.

Shotguns are highly overrated, They are slow to reload, the ammo is bulky and you can't carry large quantities of it comfortably. Aiming them is every bit as important as aiming a rifle, even with a short barrel, an open choke, and poor quality ammo, the shot only disperses an inch or so per yard of distance, and once the pattern has opened up such that you can't count on a pellet hitting any particular 2x4 inch area (rough zone of skull that buckshot will reliably penetrate), they are unreliable in effect. Furthermore, stopping power is not a measurable quality, and against things such as Brooks describes, probably doesn't exist at all.

Army tests in the 80s determined that soldiers using Chinese type 56s (AK clones, and yes, the Army and Marines both own significant quantities of these guns, for use in "Deniable" actions, or when resupply would be difficult) experienced more malfunctions per 1000 rounds than when issued M16A1s or XM177s (10.5 inch barreled predecessor of the M4, also known as the Colt Commando), and that the malfunctions were, on average, more difficult to remedy. Sand, especially, makes them lock up so hard that you need two men and a sledge hammer to get them to function again. Further, a wood butt stock is more likely to break when being used to smash something than a synthetic stock, because the wood has a grain, and will not bend as much before snapping. Never mind how tough it is to not just break, but obliterate the skull of something, when it isn't resting against something solid. Having said that, I think that the AK is a very good choice, though not as accurate as an M16 family weapon, it should be accurate enough that a skilled user can reliably make the head shot at 100 yards, and it will probably be reliable enough. Ammo and Magazines are also quite available.

The M16 and its derivatives is a mature, reliable weapons system, well regarded in the international community. The British and Australian special forces (SAS and SASR) choose the M16 over their own countries perfectly acceptable rifles, because they are excellent weapons, considered the standard of the world. Switching a M16 to FA (or burst, depending on variant) is not something you will do by accident, nor will a trained (as Max encourages you to be) individual do so because he is afraid, especially when he knows that he needs slow aimed shots. The stock on the A1, though it has a small compartment, is mostly solid, filled with the same durable material that they make the nose of most older radar equipped fighters out of. It will not break if you use it to strike someone. Nor is it spring loaded (though it does have a metal tube with a spring inside, in it, part of the action). Even the collapsing stocks used by the M4 and other variants is sturdy enough to break a head with. They also take bayonets, though if you AR (Semiautomatic M16 derived rifle) has a 16 inch barrel, and a carbine length gas system, you won't get much usable length out of it (though a 16 inch with a mid length gas system fits a bayonet just fine). Sight adjustment is not something you do in a fight, mostly you set a sight at a known range and use Kentucky windage to ensure a hit at longer or shorter ranges. Even if you do have an easily adjusted sight like the diopter sight on the A2, you only change it between shots at a competition. Further, they are very accurate, one of the most accurate semi auto or full auto military rifles available, completely capable of hitting head sized target at 400 yards (if you are up to it). Add a scope of some sort, and they can do better. Slightly modified M16 type rifles are more than capable of shooting 4 inch groups at a thousand yards, and do so routinely in competition. The Marines, armed with M4s and M16A4s, and equipped with ACOG scopes got so many head shot kills in the battle of Fallujah that the UN sent in people to make sure that they weren't executing people. I think that that is the sort of combat record that you want, if you are fighting the living dead.

SMGs (that is to say true SMGs, and not Machine Pistols) are not actually that much smaller than an assault rifle. The Thompson is longer and heavier than an AK47. The MP5 is much smaller, but still not all that much smaller than a XM177, AK74SU, or M4 style assault rifle. The Uzi is in the same range, with the Mini Uzi being smaller, and the Micro Uzi being what I would call a Machine pistol. And while any open bolt weapon is going to have a higher percentage of malfunctions than a closed bolt gun, not all SMGs are open bolt and the ones that are aren't that unreliable. Many SMGs are quite accurate as well. Machine pistols can be difficult to control and are not sniper weapons by any means, but many of them, like the Micro Uzi, and the MAC-10 are accurate enough that out of a short burst of 3 to 4 shots, you should hit a head, even at 25 yards or greater. Of course they are absolute bullet hoses, even in experienced hands, and are probably not the best choice, but if they are what you can get, they sure beat a poke in the eye.

I know Brooks was trying to differentiate them from sub machine guns, but there is a big difference between a light machine gun like a M249 and a heavy machine gun like a M2HB. Further, I think that a survivor with either of those two weapons, or a medium machine gun like a M60 or M240, would be able to use them quite effectively, especially if he where in terrain that tended to funnel the zombies in one direction, because the fact is, these guns turn bodies into pulp. Even the M249, with its non fragmenting, non expanding 5.56 rounds, SHREDS tissue. A short burst (5 rounds or so) is not only likely to hit the head of one or more zombies, especially if they are close together, but will turn a shambing zombie into a twitching mass, even if the burst passed through several of the things ahead of the last one it strikes. A zombie with broken legs or torn leg muscles can't walk, with a shredded abdominal wall, he can't keep himself standing vertically, with broken arms or shredded arm muscles, he can't even crawl. If it was the .50 caliber M2, you can expect to see limbs removed, even if you only hit them in the chest. The massive tissue damage caused by the giant .50 caliber bullet will likely damage the nerves used to transmit the locomotion commands of the brain, if you hit a zombie in the chest. Further, American machine guns, at least, tend to be quite accurate. The .50 caliber M2, with nonstandard scope attached, was used for sniping by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam, with some first shot kills out to 1400 yards. With the ACOG sight designed for the M2HB, you should be well able to make every shot count. On the down side, they are heavy, voracious consumers of ammunition, and difficult to acquire. I certainly wouldn't try to get my hands on one if I didn't have a proper rifle or carbine, but I wouldn't pass one up if I found one and had transportation other than my feet.

Crossbows are NOT quiet, and are in fact, louder than many suppressed rifles. And they are not long ranged, or particularly accurate. I wouldn't even try to shoot a zombie in the head with a cross bow beyond 75 feet or so. Even if I hit him at longer ranges, I wouldn't feel confident that I could penetrate the skull at extended range.

As for throwing knives and shuriken, I very much doubt you can penetrate the bone around the brain. Even if you have a bionic arm.

Tomorrow night I will go to armor, the day after I will do the tactics section, and on Thursday, I will start going though the "Recorded attacks" section, and WWZ.

After that, I will start commenting on the other posts in the thread.

I am having fun, are you?

[Eldan]

Just a question: how good are zombies at swimming? Lake constance isn't too far away and it has a few islands.

[black dragoon]

Don't forget the suburbs pose a unique terrain feature that can be played to your advantage. as for me base of ops. should survive long enough more than likely would be a heavily fortified version of my...old high school.
Me and my friends swear the drunken architect that designed the place must have planned for a Zombie attack. It sits in the middle of a field has only one story. four easily defendable entrances sections that can cut off from the rest of the building in case of emergency and a enough room for a reasonable sized group of survivors along with at least a hundred pounds of non-perishable dry goods.
Step one: I'd set up several lines of defense weather it be barbed wire fences at the main and largest entrance to simple mines scattered across the fields to alert me in case of Zed attacks.
Step Two: Set up escape routes that use the terrain to my advantage. Trenches that are well hidden and hunting blinds for watches etc.
Step three: set up a small garden for a stable food supply come winter.

[Norsesmithy]

Just a question: how good are zombies at swimming? Lake constance isn't too far away and it has a few islands.

according to the book, they may go into water, and can walk along the bottom, but they lack the coordination/brains to swim as we understand the term. In the ZSG and WWZ universes, those islands wouldn't be immune to infestation, though they may be easily securable.

[Eldan]

Ok, I really don't understand most of this firearm talk, but I've handled enough skulls (I took some anatomy lectures for fun. Yes, I'm strange) to tell you that throwing knives through them sounds pretty damn impossible.

[black dragoon]

Depends if the body is intact if it is gasses build up and you can get floating Zed mines that aimlessly follow currents till they hit a shore line. If they sink well...you now have random Zeds wandering the bottom of a lake looking for anything that moves.

[13_CBS]

I wouldn't really recommend a bow for zombie killing. A crossbow, maybe, but not a bow if you can help it. Bows require too much skill and energy to use. Faster than crossbows, true, but remember that the more powerful bows need a high degree of skill and muscle power to operate, and they tire you out quickly.

As for throwing weapons...wouldn't really recommend that either. Yes, a master can put them through skulls, but unless you really are a master of throwing weapons (which you probably are not), you probably shouldn't take them. Just bring more ammo.

[black dragoon]

Agreed short of stoning with some rather hefty rocks a thrown weapon is'nt going to help. However traps set forcefully throw or drop heavy objects may be able to at least crack the skull in the former and smash it completely in the laters.

[Eldan]

Hey, if it's either bow or melee, i'd take a bow. Also, I can at least hit a target with a bow, while I've never held a gun.

[Eldan]

Hey, I have the perfect idea! We could live on a submarine! As everyone who's read G.A.S. knows, that's perfectly possible. And probably very zombie proof :smallwink:

[black dragoon]

Used a longarm never a handgun. I have terrible accuracy with the bow so more than likely I'd just run and play gurrelia and set traps.

[Eldan]

Wouldn't traps take too long to set up?

[black dragoon]

A smart fighter leads the enemy to him. If I fight like the VC I'm going to make sure that my enemy play's by my rules. I'm willing lead zeds into a place I've stalked before and know when to surprise and where to set traps. Even simple mechanical Bear traps can prove to be useful. I would plan in an event such as this. I'll always try to plot out my plan of attack. If I can't then I fall back till I have some distance between me and them and then prepare.

[Texas_Ben]

Wouldn't traps take too long to set up?
Some other pressing matter demands your attention?

[black dragoon]

PLAN Z then which as everyone knows is a good old fashioned RLH!:smallbiggrin:
If it's an ideal scenario I'll have set up shop in the school and have at least a few people around.

[Texas_Ben]

I know for a fact that there are bears in my area. Does this mean I also have to be concerned about zombified bears?

[black dragoon]

Brook's Zombies carry an infection lethal to animals it's a human bourne only pathogen.

[13_CBS]

Hey, if it's either bow or melee, i'd take a bow. Also, I can at least hit a target with a bow, while I've never held a gun.

Then learn how to use a gun :smalltongue: Rifles, especially, shouldn't be too hard to pick up and learn how to use, especially if you don't plan on sniping zombies from hundreds of yards away. Within 100 feet or so, you should be fine.

[Dervag]

Just a question: how good are zombies at swimming? Lake constance isn't too far away and it has a few islands.Abysmal, but they tend to sink to the bottom of a body of water and walk across the bottom. Have you read the Zombie Survival Guide?

[black dragoon]

Really the best option in a Zombie attack is to simply avoid the fight altogether and rely sneakiness and trickery to prevent the waste of resources that are possibly going to be hard to get later down the road.

[Dervag]

Having a weapon is helpful even so, for a couple of reasons:

-If you have no effective weapon, any zombie is a major threat, even if there's only one. It's always best to be able to flee, but it's important to be able to defend yourself if attacked by zombies in a situation where flight is not practical.

-If you have an effective weapon, you become a more valuable asset to the people who are trying to organize large enclaves of survivors. You want to be able to present yourself as someone who can help defend the perimeter, not just another random person. Other skills, such as first aid, construction, or specialized technical abilities, help too. But having a weapon and knowing how to use it is a helpful skill in and of itself, if the zombie outbreak is big.

In Eldan's case, my impression is that he knows at least a modest amount about farming and/or medicine. Which would be extremely useful, much more so than archery.

If the zombie outbreak is small, this is less important, because you aren't worrying about the breakdown of civil society. But if your plan is to run away to a bunker in the mountains while the rest of the country is being overrun by zombies, you'd better have marketable skills that convince the guys in the bunker to take you in.

Being a good marksman is a marketable skill if you're looking at the end of civilization as we know it.

[Swordguy]

Since we're posting general combat loads...

Swordguy's Zombie Survival Combat Load

-1 ALICE pack
-1 set M-1956 Load-bearing equipment
-1 Camelbak
-1 Survival Pack (blanket, poncho, matches, etc)
-1 modified M1 Thompson SMG w/200 rounds (4 boxes) of .45 ball and synthetic fittings (stock, etc, brings the weight down to about 8lbs)
-1 Kimber Tactical Pro II M1911a1 .45 automatic w/50 rounds (1 box) of .45 ball w/ holster
-1 Weatherby Vanguard Synthetic .30-06 bolt action rifle with 100 rounds (2 boxes) of .30-06 FMJ and shoulder case with sling
-1 US M8a1 Bayonet
-2 weeks MREs
-2 D-cell Maglite w/2 sets spare batteries
-First Aid Kit
-Portable UHF/VHF radio (Vertex VX-P920) w/2 sets spare batteries
-3 days spare clothes (BDUs, socks, et al)
-Stainless steel finger gauntlets with long cuffs
-Stainless steel gorget
-NOFG1 Night Vision Goggles w/ 3 sets spare batteries
-1 Firearm (.45-cal) cleaning and repair kit
-1 Gerber Tool
-24 spare contacts per eye, w/2 bottle solution (what? I'm not having my glasses knocked off...this becomes optional in 5 months after my LASIK)
-3 sets heavy-duty shooting earplugs
-pocket PDF reader with topo and road maps of the continental US loaded into memory

Total weight: about 65 lbs

I can have this ready to go in 20 minutes. Bring on the zombies!

[black dragoon]

A very thorough list.What type of terrain are you facing and why not grab a bike along the way to make travel faster if it's feasible with your terrain type.

[Eldan]

Actually... I think one of the fireproof "special" labcoats and my goalie-armor (hockey), I could make a decent armor. It would be a little bulky, but I can run in it.

[Texas_Ben]

-pocket PDF reader with topo and road maps of the continental US loaded into memory
Paper maps of your state and adjacent states would be advisable as well. It would suck to run out of batteries/have that break.

[13_CBS]

Hmm...what about equipment for zombie hunting? You know, after you've set up a very safe base camp with plenty of supplies and equipment, and you want to go on a zombie hunt to clear the area of stray zombies. Armor is a must, and a vehicle would be pretty handy too.

[black dragoon]

Agreed bulkier but more reliable. I prefer being able to hold a map in my hands instead of a computer anyways. Also has anyone thought of using a college like they did in WWZ I know of few places in NY that work with the terrain and could be easily fortified and have continuous supplies of at least crops from greenhouses. You would need to retrofit them to hold more edible plants such as beans and other legumes but at lest you wouldn't starve in the winters which get pretty long around here.

[Eldan]

I just had an interesting thought... if I made it to the physics building at our university, they would have lasers there... large lasers. Also, all kinds of heavy machinery in the engineers building.

[black dragoon]

Lasers at the tactical level are not effective. Figure you're going to have no electrical power to spare if ypu're off generators not to mention those things are a pain to move around. What kinds of tools. Tractors, bulldozers what we talking here?

[Eldan]

Actually, our university has a lot of solar cell and hydrogen cell research going on. I believe half the buildings are self-sufficient, powerwise. Also, the biology department is researching new kinds of rice and corn. We therefore have greenhouses and people who know how to farm. Seeing what kind of stuff our engineers and architects usually build, defences shouldn't be a problem either. Yes, I'd go there. Ten thousand students, one of the three sites is away from the city, a several thousand other people working there... it should work if only some of them make it.

[black dragoon]

Figure you can hold the place but the manpower cost would be atrocious. If your campus isn't compact i'd suggest taking a section marking it up as the best defensible position and hole up there. The battle of five colleges worked out of the fact that they could stay above the zeds and attack from above or possibly had access tunnels at their disposal. Cobleskill isn't designed that way and would need some heavy fortifications but could still be defended and have a decent amount of room. Truth told I'd rather defend from a single structure but that has it's own limitations. And my current location is cobleskill so I need to learn to adjust accordingly I guess.

[Eldan]

Meh. We don't actually have a campus as such. We have half a dozen lab buildings, three buildings with auditoriums , a few greenhouses and two machine buildings outside the city and several dozen other buildings throughout the city. Therefore, just defending the one part would work fine. It also has open field all around and is on a hill. It also has tunnels with quite sturdy doors between all buildings. If we could put up a wall around the central square, no one would get in.

[black dragoon]

Sounds like a good spot except for that city...That could be an issue. you'd be dealing with a massive swarm almost off the bat. even a few miles out it still prove to be one hell of fight right from the start.

[Eldan]

Right. That's a problem. A million people means a million zombies.

[black dragoon]

At least a large portion anyways...I'd yell screw it and head for the alps in that case. at most around here a few thousand unless NYC turns...Then I don't know what i'd do hope they are smart and blow the bridges contain the situation and pack to head west I guess.

[Texas_Ben]

You would need to retrofit them to hold more edible plants such as beans and other legumes but at lest you wouldn't starve in the winters which get pretty long around here.
Colleges-- what a brilliant plan!
My local community college has several buildings, one of which is:

Small enough to be held by only a few people
Sturdily constructed and with few entrances
Equipped with roof access and a courtyard (good for farming)


Also something to consider is that almost all college campuses are equipped with utility and maintenance tunnels connecting all the buildings. If you have are using multiple buildings this is of course a huge boon as you don't have to worry about getting zombied when moving about. On the other hand, it means you need to fortify multiple buildings and barricade any tunnels you won't be using.

[black dragoon]

In truth the Dorms here could easily be turned into a small fortress. There are sections of Open rooftop at the second story that can easily hold raised bed gardens and with only six entrances most of which lock from the inside you can easily hole up in just one and fight rather comfortably. Beware city colleges though. They can veritable death traps as I've pointed out. I'm forty minutes by car from Albany and I still am wary of saying this is the optimum fortress supreme. It gives me more time but that can mean nothing in the end if I underestimated....

[Dervag]

I just had an interesting thought... if I made it to the physics building at our university, they would have lasers there... large lasers. Also, all kinds of heavy machinery in the engineers building.Most of that equipment is far less lethal than men with rifles would be. Physics lasers are usually tabletop units. Even the hazardous ones are normally not powerful enough to kill, though they can blind you very easily. Only a few very specialized facilities possess lasers powerful enough to kill at even short range, and those lasers are invariably big installations that cannot possibly be moved around and used as weapons, even by a crew trying to employ them cannon-style.

In general, most heavy machinery and research equipment is designed not to kill and is very power hungry. Dedicated weapons, even muscle-powered ones like axes and bows, are more likely to protect you from a zombie attack.

[warty goblin]

In truth the Dorms here could easily be turned into a small fortress. There are sections of Open rooftop at the second story that can easily hold raised bed gardens and with only six entrances most of which lock from the inside you can easily hole up in just one and fight rather comfortably. Beware city colleges though. They can veritable death traps as I've pointed out. I'm forty minutes by car from Albany and I still am wary of saying this is the optimum fortress supreme. It gives me more time but that can mean nothing in the end if I underestimated....

Heh, in case of zombie apocalypse if I'm at college I'm dead. The campus is too interconnected to be well defended, most building have plentiful large lower story windows, and all of the dorms are linked together. Also, the largest weapon I have is a four inch stainless steel dagger of such amazing bluntness I primarily employ it to clean my fingernails.

Home is another matter though, we live in a remote enough area that we're looking at well under a hundred zombies in the immediate area. We also have a much broader selection of weaponry, a 12 shot .22 semiautomatic rifle, bolt action 20 gauge, two machettes, a couple hatchets, pitchforks, axes and so on. After fending off the initial invasion it's off to meet up with all of geeky gun nut friends, at which point our firepower will increase considerably, since we'll pick up an extra two .22s, a couple different shotguns, the SKS and M4, and a .38 special, as well as a goodly amount of ammunition. There will also be enough people by this point to effectively rotate watches, recon and etc.

At University though my one consolation is that I might be able to take a Zombie with me, unlike the rest of my dorm.

[black dragoon]

*jaw drops at sound of the weapons cache*:smalltongue:
Impressive. If it makes you feel any better any weaponry for my dorm has to scrounged from a hardware store across the road and around the town before the majority of Albany knocks on the door. On the plus side we do have a massive amount of heavy equipment of various functions most are loaders and tractors But I dare you to show me a Zombie that take down a hundred horsepower vehhicle. :smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

*jaw drops at sound of the weapons cache*:smalltongue:
Impressive. If it makes you feel any better any weaponry for my dorm has to scrounged from a hardware store across the road and around the town before the majority of Albany knocks on the door. On the plus side we do have a massive amount of heavy equipment of various functions most are loaders and tractors But I dare you to show me a Zombie that take down a hundred horsepower vehhicle. :smallbiggrin:

What's really amazing is most of that cache (everything but the .22s and two of the shotguns) is owned by one guy, who at this point is probably better armed than the local police department. I know for a fact he's got a 20 gauge six shot pump-action shotgun, often with a scope, the afformentioned SKS, M4 and .38 Special, and I'm willing to bet he's got a .22 or similar stashed away somewhere that he just doesn't bother to bring to our "shoot stuff" days because everyone else brings .22s.

Also at least your campus has a hardware store in easy walking distance, my closest one is fifteen minutes away, although if I moved fast I could cut it down, but I wouldn't be able to procure anything more lethal than an axe or an airgun there. To aquire an actual gun (like, with bullets), I'd need to get out to the local Wal-mart, which is forty five minutes by foot along a major highway. Hmm, maybe I need to start cultivating the friendship of somebody with a car...

[black dragoon]

Know the feeling. It's about two miles to the nearest Wal-Mart from here.

Also Shameless advertising check out the new thread I've got up in the media section!:smallbiggrin:

[Norsesmithy]

The most important aspect of any arsenal is ammunition. Guns are fairly useless, unless they go bang. So buy it cheap and stack it deep! I fired several hundred rounds through my Kimber at my Sunday pistol fighting class, and still have some thousands of rounds in my stock pile. I have even more ammo for my AR. Reloading is also a good thing to do.

Onwards to Armor.

Starting from the top,

A man in period or replica plate harness will be slower than a being that takes ONE halting, shambling step, every second and a half. The joints are not protected from the scrambling hands of an opponent, and your range of motion is severely restricted.

The human bite force can break bones, even when distributed through Maille, and maille is breathable.

In the pel-mel confusion of quick movement and violent action that makes up life in the dead world, a brain bucket has no place.

In reverse order.

The first thing I would want is a helmet with a proper suspension system, or a sports helmet, like those intended for kayaking. Even if they don't make you any less liley to be bit and infected, protecting your head is always a good idea. If you are slammed into the ground, close lined or tripped by a zombie, you don't want to lay there stunned, because your head was unprotected, you need to be able to react appropriately, as fast as possible. Other situations exist where blows to the head are a possibility for various reasons, and the situations are probably not readily predictable.

People don't have that powerful of jaws, actually, and therefore, neither do zombies. Though we don't have trouble biting through flesh, if you have your arm wreathed in metal, a person biting your arm is not going to break it. And maille is very abrasive, so you will have to wear a jack, or other heavy clothing underneath it. Shark mail is actually worn over a wet suit for this reason, and I can't imagine trying to trudge around in a wet suit, with a poorly distributed layer of free hanging metal on top.

Period plate armor, or very good replicas, are very good at resisting human action in a ground fight. I think that zombies, as described by Max, would pulp their hands trying to unsuccessfully get at the soft chewy center. Though dieing essentially of thirst, as rotters bash themselves to paste on your armor, while holding you down, has got to be a horrible way to die. So make sure you don't get separated and trapped. Which shouldn't be as hard as it sounds, because plate harness is well distributed, doesn't restrict your range of motion all that much, and is actually easier than maille to move in. I don't know that I would employ it, but if your plan necessitates moving in heavy contact, and you are limited in the supply of proper guns, or perhaps ammo for the proper guns, it would probably be nice to have.

Short section tonight (or this morning).

[thubby]

Period plate armor, or very good replicas, are very good at resisting human action in a ground fight. I think that zombies, as described by Max, would pulp their hands trying to unsuccessfully get at the soft chewy center. Though dieing essentially of thirst, as rotters bash themselves to paste on your armor, while holding you down, has got to be a horrible way to die. So make sure you don't get separated and trapped. Which shouldn't be as hard as it sounds, because plate harness is well distributed, doesn't restrict your range of motion all that much, and is actually easier than maille to move in. I don't know that I would employ it, but if your plan necessitates moving in heavy contact, and you are limited in the supply of proper guns, or perhaps ammo for the proper guns, it would probably be nice to have.

Short section tonight (or this morning).

even in times when plate was combat gear, pummeling someone to death inside it was as-if-not-more acceptable than breaking through. I imagine the human+ strength of a zombie could hurt quite a bit.

[Swordguy]

Period plate armor, or very good replicas, are very good at resisting human action in a ground fight. I think that zombies, as described by Max, would pulp their hands trying to unsuccessfully get at the soft chewy center. Though dieing essentially of thirst, as rotters bash themselves to paste on your armor, while holding you down, has got to be a horrible way to die. So make sure you don't get separated and trapped. Which shouldn't be as hard as it sounds, because plate harness is well distributed, doesn't restrict your range of motion all that much, and is actually easier than maille to move in. I don't know that I would employ it, but if your plan necessitates moving in heavy contact, and you are limited in the supply of proper guns, or perhaps ammo for the proper guns, it would probably be nice to have.


Why on earth did you think I included gauntlets and a gorget (for some reason, zombies always bite people on the hands, neck, or shoulder) in my combat load. I only wish my NVGs allowed the use of a good helmet.

The thing about guns that you don't mention is that ammunition is heavy. With 250 rounds of .45 ACP (combat round) and 100 rounds of .30-06 (hunting round), I'm hauling about 7 pounds of bullets around. It's a toss-up between how much I think I'll need offhand, and how much I can easily carry and still retain mobility. 180-210 rounds of 5.56 NATO is the standard combat load for US Army soldiers, as a reference. Many carry as much as they can get, obviously, but they often have things like Humvees to ride around in. That helps a lot.

Plus, .45 ACP is a fairly common round - restocking shouldn't be a huge issue in the vast majority of the US.

[thubby]

Why on earth did you think I included gauntlets and a gorget (for some reason, zombies always bite people on the hands, neck, or shoulder) in my combat load. I only wish my NVGs allowed the use of a good helmet.

I'd think gauntlets would cause issues with wielding a firearm, no?

edit: i always have so much fun with these threads, does wanting zday make me a terrible person?

[Norsesmithy]

Why on earth did you think I included gauntlets and a gorget (for some reason, zombies always bite people on the hands, neck, or shoulder) in my combat load. I only wish my NVGs allowed the use of a good helmet.

The thing about guns that you don't mention is that ammunition is heavy. With 250 rounds of .45 ACP (combat round) and 100 rounds of .30-06 (hunting round), I'm hauling about 7 pounds of bullets around. It's a toss-up between how much I think I'll need offhand, and how much I can easily carry and still retain mobility. 180-210 rounds of 5.56 NATO is the standard combat load for US Army soldiers, as a reference. Many carry as much as they can get, obviously, but they often have things like Humvees to ride around in. That helps a lot.

Plus, .45 ACP is a fairly common round - restocking shouldn't be a huge issue in the vast majority of the US.

I find that carrying loaded mags in pouches, on your LBV, or chest rig, makes the weight of ammo less of a factor. I have participated in multi day hikes with unnecessary gear equivalent to 420 rounds (8 30 rounder substitutes in pouches, rest in pack) of 5.56 and 200 rounds (6 10 rounder substitutes in pouches, rest in pack) of .45 ACP stashed in my pack/on my load bearing vest, and not felt that it was a big issue (but then, I am young, 200 lbs, and fairly fit).

Though I have spoken about how ammo weight and bulk is a consideration when choosing a weapon.

My pack is a external frame 5600 cu incher, and I have a home made chest rig to go along with it (it doesn't really look tactical, it looks like a fly-fishing vest). I have a Blackhawk CQC Serpa holster for the 1911. For bedding, I have a ranger roll, and I have a 2 man tent. I have a foldable stove that can bring a quart of snow to a boil in half an hour with 25 or so good sized pinecones to feed it, a magnesium firestarter, a Kabar, a cable saw (with the carbid grit on the cable, not a short length of chainsaw chain), a hatchet, 500 feet of paracord, 1000 feet of twine, mess kit that has a sauce pan, a fry pan that also serves as a lid, a plate, a bowl, a cup, silverware, and fits in about the same amount of space as two boxes of 45. 6 cans that stack in themselves (that I fill with rocks and hang from the twine to make a simple security alarm or use for anything else I need), a small fishing kit and string, that is the size of a pack of cards, a weather radio, a solar battery recharger, rain gear, a sweatshirt, a flannel shirt (the three layers and a regular shirt combined are very effective, even when the temp is below zero), flannel long johns, two pairs of woolen trousers, wool socks, a pair of cotton trousers with zip off lower legs, a 4 pack of underwear, two t-shirts, a wide rimmed fishing hat, a stocking cap, my Walker Game Ears (perfect binaural replication and amplification of quiet sounds, dampening of loud noises like gunshots), a pair of 10x60mm binoculars, a pre packed medical kit, 4 Israeli trauma bandages, Tylenol, Claritin, Day-Quil, the above stated ammo load outs, two 550 round packages of .22LR, a .22LR conversion kit for the 1911, one for the AR 15, sandals, spare boot laces, sewing kit, polarized sunglasses, GPS, compass, palm sized topo maps for a 6 county area, magnifying lens, a few guidebooks, Day By Day Armageddon (a novel), Lost World, my dope book (for long range shooting), a waterproof notebook, 5 pencils, and 18,000 calories of nutritionally balanced dried food and emergency bars.

With rifle and pistol, all this weighs 56 lbs

When I hike with the family, my pack is often 65 lbs or heavier, because I end up carrying extra gear, so I know I can handle this one when I need to.

Edit, forgot the three pairs of gloves, two pairs thin work gloves, one set of fleece lined.

[Dervag]

even in times when plate was combat gear, pummeling someone to death inside it was as-if-not-more acceptable than breaking through. I imagine the human+ strength of a zombie could hurt quite a bit.You didn't pummel someone to death with your bare hands through the armor. You used a mace or a big hammer.

It is effectively impossible to damage a sturdy piece of metal with something made out of meat. Zombies, being made out of meat, are not going to be able to cause serious injury to an armored man unless they manage to grapple him in such a way that he falls and can't get up, or if they somehow manage to break his joints. Zombies are not radically stronger than humans, and they are quite capable of causing themselves horrible injuries trying to bite or rip steel plates.

[black dragoon]

And not care about said horrible injuries. If it's one guy in a suit of full plate against five zombies I give it to the Z's simply out if the fact they won't give up till they get at the poor sap inside.

[warty goblin]

And not care about said horrible injuries. If it's one guy in a suit of full plate against five zombies I give it to the Z's simply out if the fact they won't give up till they get at the poor sap inside.

They won't care about them, but neither will the guy in the armor. Remember full plate renders people with swords more or less ineffective*, and if it makes hitting somebody with two and a half feet of sharp metal worthless, getting punched is even more worthless.

*short of a few specific styles such as aiming for joints, or my personal favorite, punching the quillions of your sword through somebody's visor.

[Artemician]

They won't care about them, but neither will the guy in the armor. Remember full plate renders people with swords more or less ineffective*, and if it makes hitting somebody with two and a half feet of sharp metal worthless, getting punched is even more worthless.

*short of a few specific styles such as aiming for joints, or my personal favorite, punching the quillions of your sword through somebody's visor.

Yeah, but what if the guy gets tripped and gets his visor ripped off? You'd have a problem then.

[Dervag]

Yeah, but what if the guy gets tripped and gets his visor ripped off? You'd have a problem then.Yes, but a guy can get tripped just as easily without armor, and ripping the visor off will take considerable time and fumbling on the zombie's part. Those things don't just come off when you pull them with your hand like the visors on LEGO helmets, you know.

In any possible case, to bite and infect the man inside the armor the zombie will have to remove the armor, and possibly bite through the heavy padding underneath the armor. This buys at least a few seconds, and possibly many seconds or even minutes, of time. In that time, the armored man can be saved by his comrades, or use a variety of martial arts moves (such as wrestling tricks for escaping holds) to break free of the zombie and/or neutralize it.

Whereas an unarmored man in the same situation, while slightly less likely to be trapped in the first place, has no defense against the zombie bite and is thus far more likely to be killed.

Remember that an armed and armored man on foot can usually overcome human opponents who are not similarly armored, even if they are armed. If unarmed zombies could easily tear the armor off a man, then you may be assured that armed soldiers would easily be able to do the same.


And not care about said horrible injuries. If it's one guy in a suit of full plate against five zombies I give it to the Z's simply out if the fact they won't give up till they get at the poor sap inside.If the armored man has any kind of a weapon, he's almost certain to win, because the zombies can't easily hurt him if he doesn't let them. Yes, if he starts the "fight" all alone, down on the ground with the zombies dogpiling on top of him, he's in trouble. If he has buddies who can pry the zombies off him, or if he starts on his feet in a position to brain them with a mace, or if (even better) he starts on his feet with a gun, he wins.

Even if the zombies manage to grapple him, the zombies will not be able to chew through iron, no matter how hard they try. They will not be able to rip off his armor faster than he can kill them in a number of ways. For instance, if he can get an arm free (quite likely; zombies are not clever wrestlers), he will be able to disable the zombie entirely by severing their spinal column with a dagger.

In short, plate armor provides protection just as good as the 'shark suits' recommended for fighting zombies underwater. It's still possible to be injured and remotely possible to be infected, but the odds of that happening are vastly lower.

[Texas_Ben]

I'd think gauntlets would cause issues with wielding a firearm, no?
Not terribly.

And as far as plate armor is concerned:
I got yelled at for recommending leather armor, which is extremely easy to make on your own, on the grounds that it is too hard to find.

Now ya'll are going to recommend gallivanting around in a suit of full plate? Where do you plan to find a suit of full plate? Which, I feel I should add, is ideally tailored to the individual user to ensure the minimum restriction of movement.

Dropping being a grouchy old fart for a moment, there are aluminum plate armors available for SCA and renfair types. Against simple bite and clobber attacks they'll be quite as effective as their steel counterparts, and more than a bit lighter to boot.

All told though I don't think that chest protection is very necessary-- for a demonstration of why, try and bite into someone's chest. It is quite hard, you will notice. Protection for the shoulders and extremities should be sufficient.

And I think it is time we discussed the ultimate defensive measure against zombies-- Parkour. I've been doing parkour for a little over 2 years now (still not very good at it, but zombies are not difficult to outclass) and am confident in my ability to evade zombies through superior mobility.

[13_CBS]

Not terribly.

And as far as plate armor is concerned:
I got yelled at for recommending leather armor, which is extremely easy to make on your own, on the grounds that it is too hard to find.



If anything, I might favor a suit of this over a suit of steel plate. Lighter, and almost as protective which is critical if you're on the run.

[black dragoon]

Agreed and I didn't mean to sound harsh I was simply saying that many of us will have a little difficulty finding a good quality suit. (of either really)
Also If any one feels like it start thinking out ways to kill the vamps on my thread I'd be honored to hear your guy's input on the topic. I know it's not much at the moment but I'll be adding when I can and when I figure out how certain things work.:smallamused:

[Lostintransit]

This reminds me of the lego brick suit....

My mates and I came up with a funny square box with visor for moving around in, made from lego blocks, it was quite funny... not very effective for fighting in but good for all round protection....

Regards

[warty goblin]

Yeah, but what if the guy gets tripped and gets his visor ripped off? You'd have a problem then.

Depends on the helmet. For one thing a lot of 'em don't even have detachable visors. Those that do tend to be pretty well attached with hinges and all, as well as being difficult to get a purchase on. Ever try to actually tear even a small piece of metal in half without considerable leverage? It's pretty much a non-starter, and you actually know what pieces to pull on, a zombie wouldn't. Plus in order to do that the zombie has to get close, which means a high probability that it's already been shot, or even if the defender only has a melee weapon, crippled in one limb.

Now tragically I don't actually own plate armor, and am short the padding to go under my chainmail, but even with the chain, a decent helmet and some padding, as well as a simple weapon (like an 18 inch matchette) I'd be pretty confident against one or two zombies.

[Norsesmithy]

Dropping being a grouchy old fart for a moment, there are aluminum plate armors available for SCA and renfair types. Against simple bite and clobber attacks they'll be quite as effective as their steel counterparts, and more than a bit lighter to boot.

I would not recommend aluminum, as it doesn't have near the resiliency of steel. If you hit steel with 3/4ths the power needed to deform it, hundreds of times in a row, it doesn't deform. If you do the same to aluminum, it will crack.

As for your other points, it is my estimation that leather armor would only protect for a very short time, as every blow you take will be transmitted in its entirety, to you, and it is something you can shew through. It would still be better than a stick in the eye, but PVC or similar rigid polymer armors would probably be more effective, for the weight (and easier to fab, to boot).

As for Parkour, I think that it is a very good idea, and even if you end up moving through more open terrain, where your practiced skills are less useful, the physical fitness that most traceurs gain would be an asset anyways.

Having said that, I think it is important to be weapons trained. Being able to neutralize a threat is perhaps even more important a skill.

[Texas_Ben]

You make it sound as if they're going to be sitting there bashing and gnawing at you. I don't know about you but ideally your armor isn't something that sees a lot of use.

And for the record I was talking about hardened leather. Which is just as good at dispersing impacts as other rigid armours. And agian, I must stress the availability of leather armor--it is very much something you can do at home. 10 minutes on google and about $40 is all it takes. As a poor college student, that is a very attractive price tag compared to what you'd spend on anything else.

A riot shield would be a good thing to have. Lets you break through a line of zombies if you're getting cornered/surrounded.

[Swordguy]

And for the record I was talking about hardened leather. Which is just as good at dispersing impacts as other rigid armours. And agian, I must stress the availability of leather armor--it is very much something you can do at home. 10 minutes on google and about $40 is all it takes. As a poor college student, that is a very attractive price tag compared to what you'd spend on anything else.


Ummm...not so much. It take between 55 and 115J of energy to penetrate sheet steel of between 18 and 16 gauge (the VAST majority of armor is in this area). A human can generate 45-60J of energy from a sword swing (and that's including the lever action of the sword increasing its tip speed - the force from a punch is...less). Read the third post in this (http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=60685&start=0) thread, it does the details (I wrote it, I should know).

So, now the onus falls on you. How much energy does it take to penetrate hardened leather (water or wax boiled)? My theory is that it's significantly less - though more for anecdotal reasons. If it was as good as metal, and easier to work with, then people would have used it more than metal. They didn't. Therefore, it must not be as good as metal.

[warty goblin]

You make it sound as if they're going to be sitting there bashing and gnawing at you. I don't know about you but ideally your armor isn't something that sees a lot of use.

And for the record I was talking about hardened leather. Which is just as good at dispersing impacts as other rigid armours. And agian, I must stress the availability of leather armor--it is very much something you can do at home. 10 minutes on google and about $40 is all it takes. As a poor college student, that is a very attractive price tag compared to what you'd spend on anything else.

A riot shield would be a good thing to have. Lets you break through a line of zombies if you're getting cornered/surrounded.

Ideally of course the zombie apocalypse doesn't happen at all though.

I've not got much experience with hardened leather, but if it is effective at disappating blunt force trauma, you're golden. It's not like zombies generally weild awl pikes after all. My one worry would really be the stuff getting wet, because I'm not sure how that effects hardened leather, and I'd really not want to get trapped in my own armor because all of the fittings swelled.

[Norsesmithy]

You make it sound as if they're going to be sitting there bashing and gnawing at you. I don't know about you but ideally your armor isn't something that sees a lot of use.

If your armor doesn't save your life when used, it is just extra weight. I don't know much about wax hardened leather, but I do know that boiled hardened leather and rawhide doesn't provide as much protection as similarly bulky polymer, or similarly heavy steel, from blows, cuts, or punctures. Like I said, it is far from a stick in the eye, but better options exist, that are easier to acquire or make yourself.

As for what polymer, I would suggest using Kydex, it is very tough, can be purchased in sheets, and is fairly easy to work with.

[Eldan]

You know, when you're done with this, we really need pictures of our courageous zombie fighters.

[Texas_Ben]

Ummm...not so much. It take between 55 and 115J of energy to penetrate sheet steel of between 18 and 16 gauge (the VAST majority of armor is in this area). A human can generate 45-60J of energy from a sword swing (and that's including the lever action of the sword increasing its tip speed - the force from a punch is...less)

I'm not terribly worried about sword-wielding warriors in the zombie apocalypse. It just has to stop human teeth. Which I'm fairly sure it will. So yes, it is quite as good at other rigid armors. I don't need to be slaying dragons in this stuff, just not get chewed on.

[Swordguy]

I'm not terribly worried about sword-wielding warriors in the zombie apocalypse. It just has to stop human teeth. Which I'm fairly sure it will. So yes, it is quite as good at other rigid armors. I don't need to be slaying dragons in this stuff, just not get chewed on.

But if it's not as hard as steel (or plastic, or that matter), teeth may be able to bite into it regardless. In fact, I've got a cuirbolli elbow cop around here somewhere...

[Texas_Ben]

But if it's not as hard as steel (or plastic, or that matter), teeth may be able to bite into it regardless.
Leather is better. RULE OF COOL is the ultimate index of zombie apocalypse survivability.

[13_CBS]

But if it's not as hard as steel (or plastic, or that matter), teeth may be able to bite into it regardless. In fact, I've got a cuirbolli elbow cop around here somewhere...

Didn't a French King wear cuirbolli to battle once? :smallconfused:

[warty goblin]

You know, when you're done with this, we really need pictures of our courageous zombie fighters.

Good idea. Over fall break I should get together with my extraordinarily well armed friends so we can reherse our zombie attack plans, then we can show off our massive weapons cache in photographic form. Plus maybe we could round up a picture of a zombie for target practice, then see if we can't manage to completely decapitate it by the end of the day.

[Swordguy]

Okay...that hurt. Granted, my front two teeth are fake (ice hockey), but ow...

In any case, my highly apocryphal experiment just proved that a 5'7", not unusually strong person can in fact do significant damage to wax-hardened 10oz leather in a single bite. The incisors got a lot of penetration, and I pulled back at an angle, looking to tear the leather (think how a dog bites). It's not torn through per se, but it's certainly damaged - lots of surface tears, and it look like I bit through about a third to half of its thickness. A zombie, who doesn't feel pain, could probably get through this given a little time. The X factor is whether or not the zombie gets extra strength in its jaw from being a zombie. No way to account for that, I'm afraid.

So, my conclusion is that leather is a fairly good material to protect against incidental bites, but will degrade fairly rapidly over time from accumulated damage, while plastic or metal will be more resilient. If you get knocked down and chewed upon, I'd rather have the metal/plastic. If you can avoid such, the leather isn't a bad way to go.

Assuming, of course, your zombies don't have hyena-like jaw power...



Didn't a French King wear cuirbolli to battle once?

Many, many kings wore leather into battle. However, once plate armor got around, the instances of such dropped to nearly zero.

[13_CBS]

Many, many kings wore leather into battle. However, once plate armor got around, the instances of such dropped to nearly zero.

I don't remember precisely who, but I remember on another forum where someone mentioned that a French King wore Cuir Boulli to battle despite having a stash of plate armor available. Maybe the King wasn't a very smart one?

[black dragoon]

Or was making a stand to show his men he'd hide behind no metal shield.
As for the leather issue. If you're on the move go for it especially in reasonably dry climates.

[Dervag]

Not terribly.

And as far as plate armor is concerned:
I got yelled at for recommending leather armor, which is extremely easy to make on your own, on the grounds that it is too hard to find.I, for one, find such yelling absurd and foolish, and did not participate.


Dropping being a grouchy old fart for a moment, there are aluminum plate armors available for SCA and renfair types. Against simple bite and clobber attacks they'll be quite as effective as their steel counterparts, and more than a bit lighter to boot.Might work.


All told though I don't think that chest protection is very necessary-- for a demonstration of why, try and bite into someone's chest. It is quite hard, you will notice. Protection for the shoulders and extremities should be sufficient.All they have to do is break the skin. I'd want something tough over my chest, if not an actual metal plate (which is, as you say, heavy and hard to get).


I would not recommend aluminum, as it doesn't have near the resiliency of steel. If you hit steel with 3/4ths the power needed to deform it, hundreds of times in a row, it doesn't deform. If you do the same to aluminum, it will crack.Yes, but a zombie isn't going to get hundreds of chances to pound on your armor with great force. Or if they are, you are very probably out of luck no matte how good your armor is. At that point, you're hopelessly tangled in a pile of zombies and unable to escape.

For the purpose of protecting important parts of your body from bites in melee combat (when you are presumably armed and supported by armed comrades), aluminium should be acceptable. It is objectively inferior to steel, but it greatly outclasses the zombie's ability to break armor anyway.


As for your other points, it is my estimation that leather armor would only protect for a very short time, as every blow you take will be transmitted in its entirety, to you, and it is something you can chew through. It would still be better than a stick in the eye, but PVC or similar rigid polymer armors would probably be more effective, for the weight (and easier to fab, to boot).Sounds very plausible.


Having said that, I think it is important to be weapons trained. Being able to neutralize a threat is perhaps even more important a skill.After all, you can escape a Brooks zombie at a brisk walk. Parkour would be a huge help in escaping if you get cornered, or in keeping clear of zombies in a tight built up area. But if a zombie bursts out of the closet three feet away, or if you are in a large area spotted with zombies and don't want to let the groans of one attract a hundred others from all directions, you need to be able to take down a zombie.


I'm not terribly worried about sword-wielding warriors in the zombie apocalypse. It just has to stop human teeth. Which I'm fairly sure it will. So yes, it is quite as good at other rigid armors. I don't need to be slaying dragons in this stuff, just not get chewed on.I'm not actually certain whether it's good enough or not. It might very well be. On the other hand, for a lot of people it will be hard to improvise, and they might want to seek other cheap options (like PVC). For you, who are apparently in a good position to make leather armor quickly, it sounds like a good and worthwhile kind of protection.

After all, your priority is escape and evasion. Armor that provides brief protection while you wriggle away and Le Parkour your way out of the situation is good enough for that. For people who are thinking about extended antizombie combat, heavier armor is in order.


Okay...that hurt. Granted, my front two teeth are fake (ice hockey), but ow...

So, my conclusion is that leather is a fairly good material to protect against incidental bites, but will degrade fairly rapidly over time from accumulated damage, while plastic or metal will be more resilient. If you get knocked down and chewed upon, I'd rather have the metal/plastic. If you can avoid such, the leather isn't a bad way to goNote to self:

If Swordguy says "If X happens, I'll eat my hat," or "I'll eat my shoe," or something like that...

It is important to remember the very real probability that he is not joking.

[Ryshan Ynrith]

I would not recommend aluminum, as it doesn't have near the resiliency of steel. If you hit steel with 3/4ths the power needed to deform it, hundreds of times in a row, it doesn't deform. If you do the same to aluminum, it will crack.

<snip>

<materialsengineer>
Actually, I'm not sure about that. Any load below the fatigue limit will not harm a metal for at least ~10^7 cycles, so let's take a look at some numbers.

Yield strength of of 1015 carbon steel (point at which non-recoverable deformation occurs): 605 MPa
Fatigue limit of 1015 steel: 350 MPa

Yield strength of 7075-T6 aluminum: 503 MPa
Fatigue limit of 7075-T6 aluminum: 159 MPa

Thus we can see that both metals will fatigue well below 3/4 of yielding, although the steel does perform better. Fatigue, however, is a minimal issue with armor, unless you are very close to its yield strength-you do not typically get hit 1,000,000+ times lightly in the same spot.

For armor, you typically want lots of fracture toughness and reasonably high yield strength-you can't get more of one without sacrificing some of the other, and it's a lot more important to withstand impact than to withstand it without yielding at all. It is actually more likely that steel will become brittle and fail than aluminum, because the BCC structure of room-temperature steel is more prone to strain-hardening than the FCC structure of aluminum, which will also retain its toughness despite intense cold. This only applies if the armor is actually dented-for non-damaging hits, both materials will work fine.

TL;DR version: Steel and aluminum can both take a lot of weak hits before hardening and subsequently breaking.

</materialsengineer>

Source is Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials, 4th edition, by Richard W. Hertzburg.

[Swordguy]

Now see ^^^that^^^ ?

THAT is how to make a supportive post.


And Dervag? Do you know a simpler and more efficient way to test the resistance of wax-hardened leather to a human bite? :smallbiggrin:

[13_CBS]

Swordguy: Armor Biter in the Playground.

[Seraph]

so, would this sound like decent anti-zombie armor?

-armored leather motorcycle jacket, pants, helmet
-plate armor on arms, boots
-some sort of neck protection

as a weapon, a slug-loaded sawnoff shotgun (for compactness, and I'm reasonably sure that a sawnoff using slugs actually increases the destructive power of the shot), as well as a small-yet-heavy mace for skullcrushing and a WASP knife for an absolute emergency.

[Dervag]

Weapons mix sounds plausible, with one major flaw.

Range. With a sawed-off shotgun firing slugs (assuming that is legal where you are), your accuracy rivals that of a blackpowder-age arquebus. You'll do massive damage on a hit, but your hit probability is not good. And unlike your great-to-the-tenth grandfather with his musket, who was fighting human soldiers, you need headshots.

I'd recommend a rifle. You don't need massive stopping power, because stopping power is practically nonexistent against beings that do not feel pain. You need to cause very specific physical damage to relatively small parts of the body.

The shotgun is smaller and more portable, but you're more likely to miss.

I suppose it depends on terrain. But I suspect the Zombie Survival Guide actually does recommend a good gun for killing large numbers of zombies: the M1 Carbine from the Second World War. It's accurate out to a fairly long range, the individual .30 caliber rounds (not 30-06) are damaging enough, and it has semiautomatic fire.

Clearly, the M1 Carbine may not be the best choice today. And even in some states of the relatively gun-happy US, it is illegal. But sawed-off shotguns have legality issues too.


And Dervag? Do you know a simpler and more efficient way to test the resistance of wax-hardened leather to a human bite? :smallbiggrin:I do not. I am not criticizing your action. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time... lots of things do.

I am merely viewing your attempt to eat a piece of body armor with alarm.

[warty goblin]

so, would this sound like decent anti-zombie armor?

-armored leather motorcycle jacket, pants, helmet
-plate armor on arms, boots
-some sort of neck protection

as a weapon, a slug-loaded sawnoff shotgun (for compactness, and I'm reasonably sure that a sawnoff using slugs actually increases the destructive power of the shot), as well as a small-yet-heavy mace for skullcrushing and a WASP knife for an absolute emergency.

Sawing off the barrel is incrediably unlikely to increase* the power of the weapon and is far more likely to decrease it. See the longer barrel means more of the gunpowder will burn inside the barrel, thus leading to more hot gas, a larger pressure differential between the outward end of the slug and the inward, and thus a faster and more powerful shot. The lower velocity will also cause the slug to drop more rapidly with distance, making it harder to aim, to say nothing of the likely loss of the ever useful forward sight. Also gun metal is pretty hard stuff and shotguns aren't exactly thin barrelled, sawing one of those puppies off is doable, but a lot of work, and unless the inside of the barrel is sanded down, any jags of metal could potentially cause some unpleasantness.

*Sawing off the barrel could increase the power of the shot if it is long enough that all of the powder will be burned a reasonable distancebefore the shot leaves the barrel, since after that you are in fact simply slowing the shot down via friction with the gun barrel. Nobody makes gun barrels that long as far as I can tell, the only reason would be for better accuracy, which given that slugs aren't exactly long range projectiles is incrediably unlikely to be the case with a shotgun.

[Construct]

<materialsengineer>
Actually, I'm not sure about that. Any load below the fatigue limit will not harm a metal for at least ~10^7 cycles, so let's take a look at some numbers.

Minor quibble: for ferrous metals, stresses below the fatigue limit do not cause fatigue.

Norsesmithy was referring to fast fracture. The critical stress intensity factor K1C for, say, mild steel is 140 MPa.m^-1/2 while those for aluminium aircraft alloys are only 25-45 MPa.m^-1/2. In other words, given the same size inevitable micro-cracks, the steel can tolerate blows three to five times as hard without risking sudden failure.

That said, an unarmed zombie trying to grab you isn't going to put the necessary stresses on your armour* so I say go for the lighter, easier-to-care-for option.

* numbeeeeeeeeeeeeeers...*moan*...crave...numbeeeeee eeeeeers...

[Norsesmithy]

I think one could do better than a shotgun. A full sized (read 5 inch barrel) service pistol is going to have a similar effective range, similar penetrating power, while being smaller, lighter, and higher capacity. Not to mention you can reload them more quickly and carry more bullets. And they are more easily acquired (legally).

If you want better than a pistol, I think that a AR or AK based carbine would be the way to go.

Both options will be WAY more pleasant to practice with than a sawn off shotgun of dubious legality.

Edit, Devrag Ninja'd

To the nightly post!

On the defense. This section is actually pretty good, or at least the pieces of this section that I am knowledgeable enough to comment on are. The biggest issue I saw was the belief that you can generate a significant amount of electricity on a pedaled dynamo. The actual output is shockingly low. Another is the belief that destroying the staircase in an office building is a trivial matter, they are quite strong.

As for the On the Run, and On the Attack, I think that the deficiencies in those chapters are ones that were covered in the weapons section. The plans espoused is fundamentally sound, but some details need to be modified.

[Construct]

I suppose it depends on terrain. But I suspect the Zombie Survival Guide actually does recommend a good gun for killing large numbers of zombies: the M1 Carbine from the Second World War. It's accurate out to a fairly long range, the individual .30 caliber rounds (not 30-06) are damaging enough, and it has semiautomatic fire.
How common is .30 ammunition in the US? Surely a 9mm carbine would be a better choice?

I am merely viewing your attempt to eat a piece of body armor with alarm.
He's turned! Kill him! Kill him now!

[Ryshan Ynrith]

I did note for /at least/ 10^7 cycles, but I suppose that does bear mentioning.
There is no doubt steel is tougher-my response was due to the condition "3/4 of the force necessary to deform it"; this is specifically below the yield strength, and below the yield strength strain hardening does not occur (with a very small amount possible due to not perfectly linear elastic strain in certain metals). No strain hardening, no embrittlement, no armor cracking due to low-strength blows. That's fatigue territory. Those micro-cracks will form from either yielding (which requires very high force) or from fatigue, which requires many, many cycles. Additionally, failure of a metal due to a blow is not going to be as severe as say a structural member, as the force is impulse and not continuous-once it yields, you've got a dent with a crack in it, most likely, and this represents a minimally dangerous failure.

Steel is better in most respects, but aluminum would be fairly serviceable nonetheless, particularly due to minimal maintenance requirements. Good steels will rust, and stainless tends to be excessively heavy. And in the unlikely event that it's cold enough for steel to go ductile-to-brittle on you, aluminum is much superior.

[Dervag]

How common is .30 ammunition in the US? Surely a 9mm carbine would be a better choice?It is... not uncommon, based on my underinformed impression.

[cue Norsesmithy saying "Are you KIDDING? I can never find .30 Carbine!" or "You know, you can just use [atrociously common] stuff to load your M1 Carbine..."]

Thing is, 9mm is a pistol cartridge. Pistol cartridges are low velocity and therefore short-ranged. Because the maximum effective range of a pistol cartridge is so low, weapons chambered for 9mm and similar rounds are generally not designed for high accuracy.

Which makes getting those headshots harder at long range, which is the best possibly place to fight a zombie. The best weapon to fight zombies with is a long-range rifle, if you have the skill to use it and a good position to fight from. The weakness of the rifle is that its low rate of fire and large size make it awkward in close quarters. In close quarters, you need a carbine. In very close quarters, you need a pistol.

But a carbine chambered for rifle ammunition can serve the purpose of a rifle tolerably well... which is not a small concern. If your plan is to hole up in a defensible building, you want to be able to pick off zombies from long range so that your building isn't constantly besieged by zombies. If your plan is to flee to the countryside, you need a long-range weapon suitable for taking down zombies from a great distance. Either way, a semiautomatic carbine chambered for rifle ammunition is likely to be your best bet.

The M-16 and AK rifle designs can serve this purpose. Like carbines, they are designed to be small enough for use in close quarters. They have a semiautomatic fire mode that experts actively prefer over automatic fire for most applications.

[Texas_Ben]

I think one could do better than a shotgun. A full sized (read 5 inch barrel) service pistol is going to have a similar effective range, similar penetrating power, while being smaller, lighter, and higher capacity. Not to mention you can reload them more quickly and carry more bullets. And they are more easily acquired (legally).


Pistols are by no means more easily acquired legally than shotguns, at least in PA. I am not thoroughly familiar with my state's gun laws, but I believe that shotguns/rifles you can purchase when you are 18, with nothing other than a $10 background check. I'm not sure what laws apply with pistols, but I know that you have to be 21 years of age, which makes them more difficult to legally require right off the bat. I'm not sure but I think you also have to take some classes and get more expensive permits.

Also vs. zombies penetrating power isn't an issue. You want splatter power, which shotguns have much more of than pistols. My thinking is that even if you don't hit them in the head you want to do as much damage as possible-- a damaged zombie isnt as much of a threat.

[Norsesmithy]

Pistols are by no means more easily acquired legally than shotguns, at least in PA. I am not thoroughly familiar with my state's gun laws, but I believe that shotguns/rifles you can purchase when you are 18, with nothing other than a $10 background check. I'm not sure what laws apply with pistols, but I know that you have to be 21 years of age, which makes them more difficult to legally require right off the bat. I'm not sure but I think you also have to take some classes and get more expensive permits.

Also vs. zombies penetrating power isn't an issue. You want splatter power, which shotguns have much more of than pistols. My thinking is that even if you don't hit them in the head you want to do as much damage as possible-- a damaged zombie isnt as much of a threat.
In PA, as long as you are 21 and can pass a the instant background check, you can have a pistol. Your laws are pretty good that way.

But a Short Barreled (IE sawn off) shotgun is a Class 3 NFA weapon, subject to a six month federal background check (more rigorous than the one needed for a Top Secret clearance), finger printing, and a 200 dollar transfer tax stamp.

And if you buy the gun yourself and cut it down (without doing the NFA paperwork and getting it approved and payed for first), it is a $100,000 dollar fine and up to twenty years in prison, but if the government's record is any indication of what they will actually do, you can expect them to shoot your dog, your kid, and your wife (all of whom were unarmed, your wife was holding a baby) when they arrest you. And then the sniper who does so will be promoted again.

And I don't know anything about wanting "Splatter Power" If the bullet penetrates the skull, the permanent wound channel is almost guaranteed to do the work you need, whether it exits the skull or not. And marginal quality shots with the slug aren't going to tend to do better than marginal quality shots with a pistol round, despite the fact that you will have more of them.


As far as .30 caliber M1 Carbine goes, it is fairly common, especially at large sporting goods stores, but it isn't as common as 9mm, .223, .45, or .308 at smaller stores or Walmarts.

Which may not be an issue, I buy most of my ammo online, and certainly there is no shortage of it there.

Though, if you can get your hands on it, and AR type rifle is probably a better choice, more accurate, better trajectory for long range shooting, and a big enough velocity gap that the AR has much superior penetration. An added side benefit is that most .223 FMJ rounds fragment in flesh, and I think that may be a very nice thing to have, especially when you might be in a situation where you need a marginal shot to do the job.


And in the unlikely event that it's cold enough for steel to go ductile-to-brittle on you, aluminum is much superior.
perhaps I tread further than I had board to walk, with my estimation of how much easier it would be to bash aluminum than steel (or perhaps I used terms that meant one thing in my head and quite another elsewhere), but I do know that if it is cold enough for a modern steel to encounter this issue, the guy wearing aluminum is going to have issues with how well his armor conducts away his body heat (and the zeds will be corpse-cicles so why are you wearing armor?).

[Seraph]

my reason for choosing a sawnoff is that: A), in a zombocalyptic situation it is far easier to get hold of a shotgun and modify it than it is to find an exotic foreign-manufactured military rifle, and B), in the aforesaid zombocalypse any remaining government is'nt going to trifle fining people and shooting their dog for having an illegal weapon.

[black dragoon]

True, Still take a standard over a sawn-off though. I'm in the country and I need all the range I can get. NY sadly has heavy restrictions on rifles making them hard to find however. So it's a toss up between shotgun or pistols I'm taking the shotgun

[Dervag]

And if you buy the gun yourself and cut it down (without doing the NFA paperwork and getting it approved and payed for first), it is a $100,000 dollar fine and up to twenty years in prison, but if the government's record is any indication of what they will actually do, you can expect them to shoot your dog, your kid, and your wife (all of whom were unarmed, your wife was holding a baby) when they arrest you. And then the sniper who does so will be promoted again.Are you referring to a specific instance, or to some sort of policy I hadn't heard about?

I don't want to get into even a remotely political discussion here, even an uncontroversial one like "shooting kids is wrong." It's just that I am don't know what pieces of information have led to you saying what you're saying, and am curious.


my reason for choosing a sawnoff is that: A), in a zombocalyptic situation it is far easier to get hold of a shotgun and modify it than it is to find an exotic foreign-manufactured military rifle, and B), in the aforesaid zombocalypse any remaining government is'nt going to trifle fining people and shooting their dog for having an illegal weapon.Is the shotgun semiautomatic? If not, you have a comparable rate of fire problem, and you still have a range problem.

[Swordguy]

Are you referring to a specific instance, or to some sort of policy I hadn't heard about?

I don't want to get into even a remotely political discussion here, even an uncontroversial one like "shooting kids is wrong." It's just that I am don't know what pieces of information have led to you saying what you're saying, and am curious.

Yes, he's referring to a specific instance, and yes, his details are essentially correct. I distinctly recall that episode.

[warty goblin]

Are you referring to a specific instance, or to some sort of policy I hadn't heard about?

I don't want to get into even a remotely political discussion here, even an uncontroversial one like "shooting kids is wrong." It's just that I am don't know what pieces of information have led to you saying what you're saying, and am curious.

Is the shotgun semiautomatic? If not, you have a comparable rate of fire problem, and you still have a range problem.

Another excellent point, particularly given the usual nature of shotgun magazines. I mean I suppose it would be possible to saw off a pump action, but that would seem to invite all sorts of problems with the mechanism et cetera, which probably limits you to break opens, meaning one or two shots before a full reload, or else something rather more out of the ordinary like my Dad's clip fed (missing the clip tragically) bolt action 20 gauge, which still leaves you with significant rate of fire issues since you have to work the bolt manually.

[Norsesmithy]

As I said in a PM to Devrag, the story RE the dangers of sawing off a shotgun wasn't intended to be political in any way, but rather, instead, to be an illustration of why you mustn't meddle with such things. For your further edification, possessing a shotgun of legal length and a hacksaw, and mentioning to the wrong person that you think sawn off shotguns are neat, can get you thrown in prison for "Constructive Intent" just as owning a length of muffler pipe and a pile of washers, together with an ill considered comment can get you charged with intent to make a silencer. And the people who handle such things are not known for their understanding or sense of humor.

There are very real legal issues you all need to appreciate when it comes to owning guns, especially if there intent is to modify them (HOWEVER LEGALLY) or use them for defense. I am not a good source for such info, however. Both the Brady Campaign and the NRA/ILA have sites that can help you sort through more legal things, if you are so inclined, however, I should probably let you know that the Brady Campaign often says you can do things that you actually can't, and that the NRA will err on the side of telling you that you can't do things you may actually be able to do. And neither of them replaces a talk with a good lawyer or your City Attorney (or a letter to your state's Attorney General).

Now that that is out of the way...

You know, I didn't remember the Documented Incidences portion of the ZSG being so reasonable. For the most part, it acknowledges that people with repeating longarms will, if they don't pull something bone headed, rapidly destroy the opposition. Which leads me to WWZ. The biggest issue I have with that book is the Yonkers scene. I know they preface it with the statement "The American Military had terrible moral, and the leadership was poor," but every concrete thin about that scene is wrong. Even if the men were burdened by their armor and their NBC suits, and tired from having to dig foxholes, if they got even a minimum of training, they should have done the job quite well. The book says they have all the latest gear, so I assume they have the same M16A4s with ACOG rifle scopes that the Marines were so deadly with in Fallujah. That scope is a very easy scope to use, if you close your off eye, you see a magnified field with an illuminated recticle and hashmarks used for range finding and fire adjustment, great for work in the 600 to 200 meter range. if you keep both your eyes open, the Bindon Aiming Concept causes you to see the illuminated primary aiming chevron over whatever it is you are looking at, and the bullet goes right where you put the wedge, perfect for close range engagements. So the tired but gung-ho soldiers described need to merely to take a deep breath, and remember to let the scope do most of the work, to get the success needed to calm his nerves and make him work past his fatigue. That same ACOG sight is available in a version for the M249 as well, greatly increasing their effectiveness. No long 6 syllable bursts, as described in the book, but shorter, better aimed strings of fire.

Further, we know that explosive weapons like grenades, bombs, and artillery work much better against Max's theoretical un-dead than he himself estimates, and that leads us to another issue. The kind of fire described in WWZ, is the kind of fire the assets described in WWZ can keep up for days, with only the resupply organic to the unit. Never mind that a priority tasking like that one is going to have lots of people running the mail, but even if the incompetent general staff (why did a downsizing army only drop its good men?) failed to allow for extra reloads to be delivered, he has several days of fire on hand to hold him until he can arrange it. So not only would all the artillery fire and airstrikes do more to thin the hoard than it did in the book, but there wouldn't be a tapering off of fire, as he described.

The heavy equipment described would do better as well. The Abrams tanks wouldn't have to retreat until the lines were far enough behind them that range on the remaining onboard fuel is a concern, with the new TUSK upgrade, our M1s don't even need to open the hatch to fire the commander's machine gun (a M2HB with magnified remote sight), which, combined with the coaxial (M240 with gunners magnified remote optic), CROWS mount (M2HB with magnified remote sight), and the loaders hatch machine guns (M240 with ACOG designed for the 7.62 Nato trajectory), (that is right, 4 machine guns on the TUSK M1s) are certainly accurate enough that the men in the tank, secure in their invulnerability, could use them to great effect. And never mind the "Silver Bullet", if the men in an Abrams were to run out of their "Shotgun Shells from Hell," they would probably use their HE and HEAT rounds first, and they carry a lot of them. Neither would probably do as much as one of the artillery shells, but they have the stuff in them needed to do a fair amount of damage.

As for the Bradley IFVs, not only can they have several rifle armed soldiers firing out of the vehicle, with their M16A4s (fitted with ACOGs), but they also have a M240 and a 25mm chain gun that is reportedly accurate enough to target a single hostile person at nearly a thousand yards, and hit him. And when buttoned up, they are similarly invulnerable.

The Strykers that may or may not have been attached to this battle would have done similarly well, most having several MGs in remote mounts, usually two M2HBs and a M240. Some sacrifice a M2 for a 105mm cannon, but that cannon is no handicap, the HE shells produce quite good fragments, and they carry dozens of them. Other Strykers carry a 120 mm mortar, and I think that this option is best, indirect fire is probably more efficient than direct fire at dispersing the Zed mulching fragments that explosive shells create.

Add in the mechanical destruction wrought by the treads and armored wheels of the above, and I feel that the mechanical beasts we field would put on a much better showing than the author portrays.

I don't think that this adds up to a victory at Yonkers, but it certainly would deal with a large portion of the Zombie hoard, and allow a more orderly withdrawal, and that, I believe, would make a HUGE difference when it comes to the later disposition and attitude of the country.

Good night (or maybe morning) for now, More tomorrow.

[GoC]

There is the mobility issue as well. A dozen zombies will eventually get that armor off you especially if you can't run away fast in loud hot and heavy armor.

I thought most zombie were stupid?:smallconfused:
I'd personaly go with plate armor, shotgun and spiked gauntlet.
Though I'd much prefer an APC.:smalltongue:

[black dragoon]

THey are doesn't mean they will not try to get past the stuff in their way to eat you, it's that or they just keep biting....

[Dervag]

If you're in good physical condition, you can move faster in plate armor than a zombie can shuffle after you. And, again, it takes time for them to pry armor off of you. If you aren't a suicidal idiot, you aren't traveling alone. And you're armed. In which case, by the time the zombie manages to get any of your armor off to the point where it can bite through to your skin, that zombie has already been taken out by one of your friends, or by you using a last-ditch weapon such as a dagger.
________________________

Re: Yonkers

Yeah. I get the feeling that Max Brooks Did Not Do the Research (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) when it comes to US military technology and tactics. Although I should point out that in the account of Yonkers, the guy who was there said something along the lines of "Do you know how hard it is to line up and take a headshot, over and over, [under those conditions]? Well, we did."

The implication is that the infantry shooters did make great numbers of headshots against the oncoming zombies. Indeed, it seems quite likely (given the performance of the military in other environments such as the battle of Hope) that they could have held the swarm off indefinitely.

The problem was not so much the shooters being unable to make headshots. The problem was that there were simply not enough shooters, and that the shooters' morale broke due to communications problems.

[black dragoon]

They also wern't expecting a such large numbers at once as it just kinda swarmed over U.S. troops throwing the entire battle out of whack. Doesn't help that it was not exactly something anyone really plans for.

[Norsesmithy]

In Yonkers, the Zombies had to move through a gauntlet of artillery fire, and were geographically constrained into a fairly narrow corridor, even if it had been a billion zombies, they shouldn't have been able to advance their "line" as fast as they did. In the book, the artillery killed less than half the zeds that came through the fire zone, and the fire slackened off after only a few hours of shooting. After they ran the artillery gauntlet, they had to face armor, before even getting to the shooters.

In a "real life" engagement of that manner, the artillery is going to be WAY more effective, won't slacken, and the tanks and APCs will turn surviving ghouls into so much compost. The few that trickle through will be an problem the soldiers can solve, at least for a few days.

I still think that the Yonkers position is going to fall, because of the massive weight of targets, but its fall should be much slower and more orderly.

[chiasaur11]

If you're in good physical condition, you can move faster in plate armor than a zombie can shuffle after you. And, again, it takes time for them to pry armor off of you. If you aren't a suicidal idiot, you aren't traveling alone. And you're armed. In which case, by the time the zombie manages to get any of your armor off to the point where it can bite through to your skin, that zombie has already been taken out by one of your friends, or by you using a last-ditch weapon such as a dagger.
________________________

Re: Yonkers

Yeah. I get the feeling that Max Brooks Did Not Do the Research (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) when it comes to US military technology and tactics. Although I should point out that in the account of Yonkers, the guy who was there said something along the lines of "Do you know how hard it is to line up and take a headshot, over and over, [under those conditions]? Well, we did."

The implication is that the infantry shooters did make great numbers of headshots against the oncoming zombies. Indeed, it seems quite likely (given the performance of the military in other environments such as the battle of Hope) that they could have held the swarm off indefinitely.

The problem was not so much the shooters being unable to make headshots. The problem was that there were simply not enough shooters, and that the shooters' morale broke due to communications problems.

Um...
That's what Brooks said was the problem.
The interviewee even said a few rifle companies atop local structures could have done the job with enough ammo, and that it would have worked better without the fancy new com systems spreading fear.

[black dragoon]

Exactly. They tried frightening zombies hoping to break morale or something...They are zombies and tend to break your morale first. They went in with the wrong mindset. They thought they were fighting living creatures taht felt fear and terror. They sorely mistaken. Also I still wanna hear opinions on the vamps it's not dead yet!

[Construct]

...Thing is, 9mm is a pistol cartridge...

I was thinking that if you wanted to carry a carbine that used lighter ammunition that .223 then a pistol calibre would have logistic benefits over .30 but...um, yeah, having looked up the numbers the latter isn't as rinky-dink as I'd thought, nor does the longer barrel give as much extra velocity as I'd thought. So it's 1200J vs maybe 700J; no contest, at least for 9mm.

[warty goblin]

I was thinking that if you wanted to carry a carbine that used lighter ammunition that .223 then a pistol calibre would have logistic benefits over .30 but...um, yeah, having looked up the numbers the latter isn't as rinky-dink as I'd thought, nor does the longer barrel give as much extra velocity as I'd thought. So it's 1200J vs maybe 700J; no contest, at least for 9mm.

The reason why I'd shy away from pistols against zombies is quite simple. Both a pistol, a carbine and a shotgun will obviously kill on a headshot, with the carbine being the easiest to get a headshot with. Sometimes however you might miss and get a torso or limb hit, in which case a small caliber handgun isn't gonna really slow a zombie down. A rifle or shotgun hit might though