HOME | DD

wingsofwrath In reply to kenyrandy666 [2012-05-23 11:37:45 +0000 UTC]

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, mostly because I don't speak Spanish and I can only sort-of understand what you said through the fact Romanian is a fellow romance language...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-05-23 11:35:39 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, what I'd really like to have on Z-day is a tank, but most likely I'll be stuck with cutting implements, since gun laws in Europe are pretty strict... Of course, I think it's better this way since I'd dread to see what some my neighbours would do if they had access to guns even more than Z-day...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-05-24 03:20:07 +0000 UTC]

tanks are kinda deathtraps though, sure, you can waste the horde like Kimbo Slice rolling through a parapalegic KKK convention but once you're out of gas (and I'm guessing it gets about 2 kilos to the gallon) the thing becomes a total deathtrap.

Where in Europe do you live? Depending on where, gun laws aren't so bad. Czech Republic is fairly open, so's Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark... you're boned if you're in the UK though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-05-24 13:45:51 +0000 UTC]

Really, death traps? Where did you get that weird notion?

It's clear you've never seen a modern tank in action. To take an example, the T55, the most mass produced combat vehicle ever and which is hardly new, being introduced in 1947, can go 500Km on it's internal tanks alone (600km if you add the extra tanks it will mount when travelling outside combat zones) at a speed of 55km/h over rough terrain. Add to that the fact it's fully NBC protected (meaning you're safe from infection even if it's airborne) and 39 tons of rolling steel, I fail to see how a zombie will do anything to it, especially manage to follow and overtake it... Also, most modern tanks are designed from the start to work on a variety of fuels (the t55, for example, mounts a multifuel diesel while more modern examples such as the T80 have multifuel turbine engines) from diesel or jet fuel to alcohol, gasoline, or pretty much anything else liquid that will burn, which means you can always siphon any vehicles (or liquor stores!) you come across and keep going. And even supposing you finally run out of fuel, then your best bet is simply to drive into the middle of a field where you'd have 360 degree vision for at least 1000 meters, wait for the zombies to come, then cut them down with your turret mounted 12.7mm anti-aricraft machinegun (yeah, this guy [link] ). If you really want to get creative, then you also have a 100mm main gun capable of firing anti-personnel rounds (here's an example: [link] ) and a 7.62 coaxial mg as backup, as well as light hand-held weapons.
That's probably why zombie fiction writers usually avoid the mention of armoured vehicles, since a single tank can annihilate the zombie equivalent of a small city with impunity and a few hundred of them could possibly stifle the whole outbreak relatively quickly.

I live in Romania, and here the gun laws are even stricter than in the UK when it comes to firearms.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-05-24 20:08:18 +0000 UTC]

Tanks are a giant metal box from which you have no escape from the horde once you run out of fuel (and it's going to eat fuel - very fast). I seriously doubt you're going to get very good gas mileage running something like alcohol, and it's not like there's going to be any liquor stores that won't be completely looted within ZDay + 2. Even modern tanks break down and require specialized maintenance to fix. They're a very poor choice for anti-personnel (try clearing a building or a forest with a tank - simply blowing everything apart is slow, wasteful, and often un-doable). Shit, man, some areas aren't even accessible to them due to weight. Can zombies catch them? Or do anything to them? Nope, but the thing about zombies is, they're everywhere...

If it's a straight horde vs. organized humans mode, yeah, tanks are nigh unbeatable. But just "getting a tank" is a poor Zday strategy IMO. The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z deal with armored vehicles and the problems with them extensively.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-05-25 01:06:56 +0000 UTC]

small clarification, since it just dawned on me I wasn't clear before: I'm talking of a professional driving a tank, not a random civilian, who wouldn't know how to start one, much less drive it on meter...

Anyway, we're talking about a vehicle that has a range of at least 500km BEFORE it needs to resupply, and can travel at over 50km/h. You're not going to remain trapped unless you have no idea what you're doing. I'm sure there'll be plenty of abandoned cars lying around for you to syphon gas from, but also I don't think that's necessary, because I don't think the secure army bases all the nations have are going to fall that quickly, with all their NBC protection and stuff so you can use them as resupply points as well as secure outposts where you can relax between outings.

Yeah, getting a tank is rather hard unless you happen to work in the army and I must confess I have an advantage here, being army reserve, which probably explains why I base my Z day survival strategy on such a rare vehicle... XD

Seriously though, in case of a real Z outbreak, I'd go for "bugger out quickly before the real shit storm hits" and get to an army base, they'll have the hardware and know-how.

Despite all we've seen/ read on the subject, it's still a fictional scenario and the two works you mention actually make several wrong assumptions about armoured vehicles -for example claiming that, since zombies are resilient to hydrostatic shock, a tank's main gun will be useless against them, when in real life, a "Beehive" anti personnel round can be loaded with up to 8000 flechettes, which, I might add, do not rely on hydrostatic shock but simply shred their targets to bits.
Another idea would be to use an anti-aircraft shrapnel-incendiary rounds or hell, even regular HE rounds, since I'm sure a headless, limbless zombie that's also on fire can't really move that much forward before it melts in the 2,500 °C heat of the burning thermite, phosphorous, magnesium or aluminium powder such rounds may contain.

The whole Battle of Yonkers bit in WWZ was a complete military nonsense from start to finish, even if it was supposed to be so in the context of the book, to show how inept the army leaders are. First off a lot of stuff I'm about to describe is standard military doctrine for use against humans, if you're severely outnumbered, by, let's say, the Chinese or Russian armies, who are known for occasionally engaging in "human wave" frontal attacks as zombies would, so of course real military commanders would have known about and used them.
If you really wanted to do the stuff properly you only had to create a killing field on the highway with concertina wire enclosures, seed it with landmines, wait for the zombies to stumble in then hit the whole area with he, napalm, machine gun fire, anti personnel tank rounds and even metal storm if you have it [link] . Rinse, repeat until all your ammo is gone. Also prepare in depth defences so that when the zombies finally get through you can orderly retreat to the next defensive position, rearming in the process. In between fire missions, have the tanks simply drive back and forth trough the zombie horde, since modern tank tracks are designed to withstand hits from AP projectiles, mines or IEDs, so a mere mass of flesh and bones won't break or jam the running gear even if we're talking about 8 million zombies. Here's an example of what tanks can put with: [link] [link]

And you have to bear in mind is that fighting against zombies is a battle of attrition, so you simply need to keep whittling away at the horde, backing up all the way in order to maintain a minimum 1000 meters separation from the zombies at all time, while behind you engineers build new defensive positions and the air force and artillery continuously hit the positions you've already left with incendiaries, he and thermobaric weapons.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-05-25 11:09:03 +0000 UTC]

I think they do cover the beehive-type rounds in WWZ a bit, notably that soldiers wished they could have had more of them...

And yeah... if you're in the army, then that Z-day plan makes alot more sense! I have to base my survival strategy around what I can personally do... it'll be a very different story for folks in the military.

It'd be interesting to see how the military did hold up in a Z-day scenario. I think alot of the worst-case Zombie Apocalypse scenarios revolve around an element of confusion surrounding the disease and how it's spread.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-05-25 12:03:04 +0000 UTC]

Huh. I don't remember that bit in WWZ, but it's been a while...

Confusion would be a factor, but bear in mind it's also standard doctrine to call in reservists and mobilize the army in cases of severe nation wide crisis, which a Z outbreak, even in it's most early stages is likely to be.
That means that the military personnel would be separated from the general public from the onset, and while some might indeed get sick and turn, the percentage of it would be far less than if the same people were left to their own devices and called in at the last moment.

In any case, once the high command does get it's act together, I expect the outbreak to be stifled rather quickly - once commanders on the field realise that against zombies only containment is necessary since they don't shoot back and the necessary tactics can be easily derived from anti-insurgence techniques (which, coincidentally, is exactly what's been used in some areas of Afghanistan) you can bet you'll see all sorts of barricades and checkpoints which will be used to control the fleeing population as well as the zombies. After all, if you put a chain-link fence on the one side of an irrigation ditch and stay on the other side, you can shoot zombies with impunity and with as much time as you need for each shot to be certain you take each of them down for good even though they are likely to eventually find their way past the obstacle.

Since we are most likely talking about millions of zombies, I'm not advocating fortifying existing settlements by constructing walls and barriers around them, because even the best defences you can come up with (sort of an impassable ravine or large body of water) such as multiple chain link fences and precast concrete walls will eventually be breached or toppled, if only by the press of bodies, so these should only be used to herd the zombies into killing fields, while the real secure camps would be placed in either cold-war military bunkers or preserved 18th and 19th century forts, especially those with water filled ditches. The latter are especially good for the task, since they have large internal spaces so will be able to accommodate a large number of refugees. For an example, here's what I'm thinking about: [link]
And of course, regular islands should also be converted to zombie-proof refugee camps as well as resupply and rearmament bases for strike missions against the undead. I'm guessing a country like Sweden will prove especially suitable for that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-05-26 00:29:57 +0000 UTC]

How would you propose fast zombies would impact this scenario?

I keep thinking of a hurricane Katrina-type situation, where there were serious issues with the state and local government moving supplies and personnel around, there were desertions on behalf of the local police, national guard were already deployed overseas compounding the situation, there was looting, etc. Only magnify the desperation and devastation by a thousand.

A really destabilizing situation like that would mean a lot of bad news especially for 2nd/3rd world countries as local politicians could seize power and carve out their own fiefs, worsening the security scenario. If you've read the walking dead series (not that godawful AMC Tv show but the actual graphic novels), the survivors quickly learn that the zombies are, as you say, a quite manageable threat - it's other people who pose the greatest threat.

You've definitely listed a pretty optimistic outcome for Zday, albeit one very well-grounded in reality.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-05-26 17:48:38 +0000 UTC]

Well, considering the debacle that was Hurricane Katrina in real life, I'm inclined to believe that maaaybe I am a tad optimistic of the Army's ability to control such an extensive crisis, but then again Katrina could be seen as a highly localized scenario during which it was the local rather then the national authorities who dropped the ball, and once the US National Guard, Coast Guard and regular Army got to the scene the situation came back in control relatively quickly.
If you want a counter example, the 2011 Japan Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami had a much larger scale, and yet, as people failed to panic there was a noted lack of chaos in the immediate aftermath. There still was a lot of looting though, but only some days AFTER the initial crisis had subsided and the clean-up operations began... Chalk that up to humanity's opportunistic nature if you will.

It's too true that humans are bastards and that people will try to act on their selfish urges in times of crisis, even going as far as establishing local fiefs, but that's not something that will develop initially, since the first instinct would be to run away as fast and as far as possible. It is only in the aftermath of a failed Army intervention that local politicians will think about setting up a little kingdom of their own, since any fief established while the army is still active and the government still exercises control will be crushed relatively quickly. That is not to say that this scenario won't happen, just that wherever it will it depends on a variety of local factors (chief among which is political stability).

And you're right that humans should be seen as the main antagonists. There's an excellent zombie webcomic called "Dead Winter" [link] which draws the same conclusions. You should read it, it's very good. It's drawn by

Never read the "Walking Dead" graphic novels. Maybe I should pick them up.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-05-27 01:49:17 +0000 UTC]

It was really the national, and not the local authorities, who dropped the ball on Katrina... what with FEMA's massive fuck up and all... the levees were even built by the (federal) Army Corp of Engineers... perhaps a metaphor for our unpreparedness for real disasters?

And yeah, I was thinking about the Japanese tsunami too, which was MUCH better managed.

Going back to our original argument though... my grief against tanks post Z-day is they are the type of machine that requires an organized force to effectively use - trained individuals, fuel supplies, ammunition, and so forth. If you've got that, than tanks are a complete zombie-destroyer. But the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is what would happen when all our institutions descend into chaos...

I'll definitely check out dead winter, thanks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-05-28 19:12:48 +0000 UTC]

Well, I won't argue with you you much on that one, most of what I know about that disaster comes from the media, and who knows what mistakes and distortions might have filtered into the information.
To give a good example of media distorsion, this weekend, a reenactor at a WW1 event I did not attend got both his hands blown to bits and his face severely burned in an accident, and the media reported all sort of contradictory things about both his current state and the cause, to the point where you had no chance of knowing what had actually happened (it was a rifle/cannon. it exploded. it didn't. it was a historical piece and that's why it blew up. it was a shoddy made replica. both his arms have been amputated. only one of them. he lost one eye. he didn't. etc). Today, talking to a friend who was there, I got the real story - this guy had been firing a replica cannon he built himself, and using an old fashioned fuse to set the powder off rather than an electrical system. After he lit the fuse nothing happened, so he went to the front to pack the powder more tightly before he tried again... You can pretty much guess what happened next. He lost three fingers from one hand and severely injured his other, as well as get his face burned, but that, while severe, is quite a log way from having both his arms amputated and losing en eye...

However, could it be that the focus of most emergency security organisations in the post 9/11 US was on armed terrorist attacks to the detriment of natural disasters, and it was this difference in policy, planning and training that set apart Katrina from Tōhoku?

Yes, tanks won't work unless you have an organized resupply/repair infrastructure behind them, but they are designed from the onset to be repairable even with improvised means, so as long as you can get ammo/fuel to it and don't damage it beyond normal operation all the tools already on the tank and a normal car maintenance shop could keep one in operation for years. Keeping this in mind, even if a single tank with full crew escapes intact, it would still be able to do massive damage to the zombies and even become the focus of an organized movement against them.

Also, coming back to the idea of "fast zombies" - most of the fiction on the subject seems to purposefully ignore biological limitations of the muscles in a given organism, having zombies which are several times as fast and/or strong than the original organism was when it was alive as well as being able to bite through materials which would most likely break teeth...
So a real life "fast zombie" will only be able to run as fast as a human was ever as capable of running. While it wouldn't get tired as quickly (although that's highly debatable, since I'm guessing even zombies are subject of the law of conservation of energy) that still means an average top speed of 20-30km/h, which is very low compared to most means of mechanical travel. Just get on a bike and go away before you are trapped. What could they possibly do to catch you?

Another thing to consider - while most zombie fiction states that only total annihilation of the brain would be able to stop a zombie, how about nerve, bone and muscle damage? If you sever the spinal column of a zombie, how exactly is it going to move its feet if the electrical signal in the nervous can't get there? Likewise, if a limb has it's bones broken or part of it's muscles blown away how exactly is that delicate system, which very much relies on balance for operation(pairs of muscles pulling and pushing at the same time around a central rigid frame), going to work well enough for the zombie to be dangerous?
That's why I think even explosives which rely on shockwave would be efficient on Z-day, since afterwards you'll end up with a lot of zombies flopping around uselessly on the ground after being dashed against rigid objects and the bones in their bodies broken in several places...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-05-30 23:26:35 +0000 UTC]

a) THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for introducing me to Dead Winter. I'm FUCKING IN LOVE WITH IT.

b) My understanding is that actually most zombies have realistic capabilities, strength-wise, because they simply don't experience fatigue or pain. The idea is that people under extreme duress can outperform what they can normally do - that's why you'll never run as fast as when a lion is chasing you, etc. Zombies are theoretically like this (uninhibited) all the time, and can exert force on their muscles to the point of muscle tearing, to their short-term advantage, simply because they don't process pain. People are capable of marvelous feats of strength and endurance when their brain isn't fully processing what they're going through - another example would be the notorious strength and persistence of individuals using the drug PCP. The only thing a zombie has in its physical toolkit is what it's human predecessor had, but because of its lack of inhibition its considerably more effective.

As for the bike thing, people's bikes periodically break down on the college campus I frequently visit (or they crash). For example a friend of mine wasn't looking where he was going and put his bike into a sewer grate - his wheel was caught in a slot and he went head over heels, experiencing several injuries. Now this under the most extremely positive of circumstances - people on campus aren't frantically biking for their lives, and if something breaks, well, it's only a trip to the store to get something new. Post Z-day... not happening. My point is that getting away from slow-ass zombies seems easy until you have to do it every single day, without fail, and a single mistake will easily end your life. Obviously there's a little more leeway with a tank!

c) The media has the potential to be a huge detriment on Z-day. For example, in World War Z, the media reports on the Zombie virus as "African Rabies." Simply referring to it as this can potentially have devastating consequences, as people begin to get the idea that individuals are just "sick" and therefore don't need to be terminated with extreme prejudice. Despite all that, the mainstream media's probably a huge advantage over a non-existence of publicly available info.

This is a really interesting discussion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-06-13 22:15:56 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome, I'm glad you like it. That comic is just awesome.

I see what you mean and I agree with your points, because I know exactly how a huge kick of adrenaline might make you surpass your limits: once, on a military application I was sprinting towards a bunker when I tripped, came down hard and cracked a rib, but sprang back to my feet, kept going and even managed to cut down one of the defenders. Five minutes afterwards though, I had to lay down for the better part of 15 minutes and I couldn't even breathe properly...
But again, that "effectiveness" will only work for short period of time, since, devoid of indicators that there's anything wrong with their body, zombies will be a lot more likely to incapacitate themselves through muscle rupture or other similar means than living persons.

Heh. The bike thing was a joke, I hope you don't imagine I would realistically suggest using such a vehicle in the case of a zombie apocalypse... Sure, if you're desperate and there's nothing else, but not as your "primary". It is still possible to outrun zombies on a bicycle (I once managed to outrun a few dogs who were dead set on seeing how I tasted) but you're a lot more dependant on good road surfaces than in any kind of motor vehicle, and that's likely to lack in a Z-day scenario.
Besides, the physical exertion is likely to necessitate more calorie input as well as lowering your fighting capability.

Also, I again agree with the overruling necessity of finding shelter for the night, which is why I favoured the tank in the first place - this way you will have an unassailable mobile fortress that goes with you everywhere. The only problem with a tank would be the extremely cramped interior, so I revise my suggestion to an IFV, since the latter can be adapted to provide sufficient accommodation including bunk space for 2-3 survivors despite being just as tough and mechanically reliable as a tank (especially a Soviet design, like the BMP-1).

Again, I agree.
I can't say I have tremendous respect for the media even though my last girlfriend was a journalist, because they tend to be a bit "hit and miss" when it comes to reliably reporting events, which to me looks like an irony of fate, since the main purpose of the media is to inform people...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

David-Davidson In reply to wingsofwrath [2012-06-14 15:24:24 +0000 UTC]

Actually depending on how heavily you're traveling I'd say alot of the time bikes > most motor vehicles on Z-day... unless you're in a jeep or large all-terrain vehicle, bikes don't rely on gas, much easier to fix if they break, quieter, etc. Bikes can also go alot of places cars can't (I'm think of streets packed with abandoned vehicles).

But it's definitely a trade off.

black monday blues rocks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wingsofwrath In reply to David-Davidson [2012-11-25 16:58:05 +0000 UTC]

For a regular disaster scenario I would choose the bike as well, but in case of zombies I think safety at night trumps the need for energetic independence. Besides, in an IFV I don't think blocked roads chocked with abandoned cars pose any significant problem and, in any case, those same cars can provide a readily available source of fuel.

And yes he does.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wingsofwrath In reply to xxsentinelxx [2011-12-21 23:25:38 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I'm glad you liked them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0