In a zombie apocalpyse

[Story Time]

In fact, I'd probably bring a gun when you decide to make a speech and shoot you there.

Please stop feeding the trolls! I do not, necessarily, disagree with this method of removing dictators in a theoretical zombie war, but encouraging this direction of conversation is hurtful to the mood of the thread.

So I will say it again, please, all members, stop feeding the trolls.

[Johel]

half-strangled with a chainsaw blade (luckily it was rusty and broke)

Oh !!! That's a new one !!
I wonder if any movie has ever tried that one.
Thank you
*add to list of "awesome ways to kill people"*

[dehro]

@technoscrabble... you need to stop walking into people

[Traab]

@technoscrabble... you need to stop walking into people

I was thinking more that, sooner or later, he has to explore the idea, that it might be him thats the problem. Btw, im only joking about it because you survived, and as a drunken dean martin once said to the question, "Why do we laugh?" with, "Because we MUST laugh!" So please dont be offended by me making jokes about that, it sucks to hear you went through that much.

[Solaris]

...I think I remember someone trying to call me out on a passage in a book? Something about body armor? This is the reason why. The humans are more dangerous than the zombies and the reason for the body armor.

You hardly ever wear body armor on your face.

Most body armor available doesn't stop SAF at close range, not nearly so well as they claim it does. Military-grade body armor will do so... once. Maybe twice, if Buddha smiles. There are a multitude of places I can kill you just as dead with a single round that body armor rarely, if ever, covers. They're not hard shots to make at close range - and if you're any good at shooting, they're not at all difficult at long range either. Best believe that I do not shoot people in their torsoes, but rather their heads or groins. We don't have effective body armor for the arms, legs, neck, face, or groin that will stop firearms. The only exception would be the bomb squad suits, but those are heavy and uncomfortable.

My next argument against armor:

On the subject of armor there is one, and only one, primary consideration ( for the civilian ).

"Is it comfortable?"

Yes, I'm serious. If it's comfortable, or been made comfortable by alteration, then the person is more likely to wear it. If they wear it, they are more likely to be defended should bullets go their way. Armor is heavy, and I'll admit it's more likely to be useful against humans with guns rather than zombies, but armor not worn on the day of World War Z won't help the survivor.

As for the question of effectiveness, it partly depends on the type of armor, but most quality armor which is tear resistant will stop teeth, claws, and lots of anything else at least once. Of course, that requires that the armor itself covers those areas. The survivor concerned about being shot, or bitten, in the leg should consider that kind of armor, but neither should a human allow themselves to be that close to a zombie, alone.

And why would you ask if you should wear body armor on the off-chance you run into a hostile survivor? I wouldn't wear anything more than a flak vest with gauntlets and boots over heavy clothing/leather, plus my good ol' helmet, and I'm actually used to wearing the full kit.

I, unfortunately, don't think I'll be of much use in a Zombie Apocalypse when it comes to the fighting part. My husband, RandomNPC, says my job would be to keep an eye on our son and come up with the food. I do, though, have a few nice, sharp katana at my disposal.

I doubt we've emphasized this enough, but in an apocalyptic situation, you need to keep this in mind: Avoid combat = survive. Engage in combat = die.
It's like playing AD&D with 1st-level characters who can't level up. One good hit and it's all over.

Also, if the zombie are willing to wait four and a half years, they'll be facing down a trained Officer of the US military. So I expect I'd be much more competent then.

Ahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahahaa ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaaha
I've had one too many butter-bars who thought they were something more than privates with college degrees. I've seen precious few who were good for anything more than pushing paper and making sure desks don't run away. That said, I do applaud your desire to serve.
A tip for your future career, listen to your NCOs. The most junior among them has more time in the real Army than you do. I enlisted with the plan of getting experience at the boots-on-ground level before I buck for a commission. Looking back, I know I would have made a terrible, terrible officer without that. You sound like you've got some experience and have a level head, which puts you ahead of the pack, but even so... the sir is seen, not heard. That way he won't confirm the Joes's suspicion that he's an idiot.

[QUOTE=TechnoScrabble;12952979]*Snip*QUOTE]

Okay, so we got someone whose superpower is an inability to die. Awesome.

However, if said containment fail, I guess many soldiers would just desert to save their families.
It's not like they would be fighting a war with a clear front, away from their homes and with an ennemy that can be defeated just by hitting the hierarchy.
They would have to protect their family to avoid THEM becoming the ennemy.

Our families - shock! - are on or near our bases. Deserting to protect them would be counterproductive. Hell, knowing most Army spouses I've met, they'd probably wind up fighting alongside their husbands.

But then, we are exposed the absudity of a Zpocalypse in the first place :
Why would the whole military chain of command just crumble when facing an ennemy that cannot formulate a coordonated defense or offense ?
Or at least why would it crumble to the point where madness is allowed to run the show for more than a few days ?

It... it really wouldn't. Not with any kind of zombie I've seen. Even the 28 Days Later fast zombies are cake compared to fighting actual human beings. Know why?
This, this, and this, this, these, and even this.
Ignore what Hollywood has told you. The modern military, when faced with an opponent as easily defeated as zombies, would contain them in a matter of days. Worst case scenario, that containment requires nuclear weapons. We have those, too. Napalm, machineguns capable of blowing people apart, machinegun grenade launchers (though the Mk 19 is really unreliable), we have all manner of truly horrific weapons and vehicles that mobs couldn't hope to harm (... okay, maybe tipping a Humvee). Hell, I'd put money that you wouldn't even need to mobilize the federal Army, just call up the National Guard to put 'em down.

Unless, of course, the zombies came on the heels of an apocalyptic plague.

To the people who responded to me:

I'm not saying I will run around piss drunk trying to kill everything. I'm saying if you have valuable resources, you are one of two things: An ally or an enemy. I would work with you if you are willing. I was leaning less towards a band of psycho killers, and more towards an efficient combat machine with the eventual goal of creating a militant organization and ultimately a settlement.

We already have a (relatively) efficient military machine. It's called the military. It's better at it than you are. Why wouldn't you try joining them instead of setting yourself up as Emperor Kjata I?

Yes, in the case of zombie apocalypse, fascism takes hold.

Sick people, young children, old people, these are all hindrances and must be removed. Short term survival is more important than long term, at last until a heavily fortified settlement can be established.

Not if I have anything to say about that. Considering I'm already armed and trained while you aren't, I'd say that's a serious leg up on you - and I'm nothing special, there's about a half million more where I came from. The military runs as a pseudo-fascistic dictatorship. The civilian population does not. You almost have an argument with the sick, but certainly not with the young and the old. I find the elderly have invaluable experience that more than makes it worth the while to cart them along - my paternal grandmother, for example, has forgotten more about agriculture, flying, and pre-modern living than I will ever know, while my maternal grandfather could repair practically anything. Children are the future: Kill them, and you have no future. Possibly literally so; precious few people would be willing to kill kids during an apocalypse.

So really, you have several options: Join my organization, give me everything you have and be on your way, or die fighting for your belongings and freedom.

I feel that such an outlook has a much higher chance of surviving the zombies themselves, but has a chance of implosion which would destroy any chances of surviving anyone had. But really, every plan has a flaw. I'd rather be killed trying to establish order under me than be afraid of zombies themselves.

Every plan has a flaw. It's a rare thing when the entire plan is a flaw.

I think you are overestimating humanity here. I don't doubt there would be those opposing me, there always are in these sorts of situations. But desperation leaves people vulnerable.

....

When your options are be indoctrinated or be alone, I believe the semblance of a government will appeal to those who have begun to lose hope. With the promise of safety, people will see that maybe they are better of under me. Especially when the people who haven't lost their morality in a crisis begin to slowly defect, then quickly be exterminated.

Yes, people will defect. But as someone pointed out, heroism is a good way to die. When the defectors have an angry dictator as well as the zombie horde to deal with, the only options are I win or nobody does, as the infighting destroyed any chance anyone has.

I did say heroics are a good way to die, but... you're seriously underestimating humanity, amigo.

You're confusing intimidation for power. See, pretty much every dictator ever has first set himself up by being swell for his constituents. Genghis Khan, for example, united the Mongols by kicking their tails in, sure, but he kept them together by being the best governor they've ever had. Mongol lives improved tremendously under him. That's how he got his power. You have nothing except... you might be the warlord of a town? Maybe. If you're lucky.

Also, modeling your ideal career after a certain dictator is all kinds of wrong.

I don't give a damn about Kjata XXIII, or even Kjata II. Of course the empire wouldn't last, they never do. It's all about there being an empire. There being a gold statue of me in my honor is fantastic. Nobody remembers the brutality of the winner.

Right, 'cause Genghis Khan is remembered as being a really nice guy. The good that men do dies with them; the evil endures forever.

Really, I think rational people would realize that a dictatorship is better than being zombie food. I would attract the power hungry, then the desperate, then the rational. Eventually I will die, but I will have left my mark on humanity. Savior or destroyer.

Yes, a dictatorship is probably the best form of government in that kind of situation... for the fighters. There's a reason the military traditionally answers to the civilians, rather than the other way around: Power corrupts. There is absolutely no reason to abandon these principles even in the face of armaggeddon. Oh, sure, it sounds like a good idea, but look how it's turned out in the last hundred years. Every stinking time in the last hundred years... and then remember that this is one of the most heavily-armed countries with one of the most advanced and powerful militaries on Earth.
I think you'd best try your little dictatorship somewhere not in the States. It's very hard to collect power like you'd need to in an armed society, even assuming that somehow the zombies managed to overrun the military.

[TechnoScrabble]

I was thinking more that, sooner or later, he has to explore the idea, that it might be him thats the problem. Btw, im only joking about it because you survived, and as a drunken dean martin once said to the question, "Why do we laugh?" with, "Because we MUST laugh!" So please dont be offended by me making jokes about that, it sucks to hear you went through that much.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, I have a history of talking back to the drunkards and addicts and wife beaters my mother thought she could 'fix' with love. The man I consider my father (he never married my mother and isn't biologically related to me, but let's face it, if he hadn't been around, I'd be either dead or a horrible, horrible human being) had always taught me that sort of person should not be tolerated.

That, and I called my ex-stepmother out on cheating on my father, angering her, and apparently the guys who kept jumping me at school (I didn't even actually know who they were until after the chair incident) were pissed because I'd let one of the deans know when I saw one stealing from a friend of mine.

So I'm not offended. My choices were my own, and they've resulted in me being able to break the furniture with my knee and stand at attention comfortably without buckling.

But back to the zombies.

In the "Are handguns helpful or not" debate, I would have to throw in my two pennies as: Bring one along in case a zombie gets too close for you to swing a melee weapon efficiently.

Spoiler

Show

Oh, and I know ROTC won't make me the best officer or whatever like earning my way up there would, but I'll still be more competent than I am now is what I meant. Besides, it's more for the college. I don't mind a desk job, as I'd rather not lead someone who believes that just because I qualified for and took an entry plan that meant I wouldn't have to spend four years scrubbing toilets and getting crap pay before getting to officer means I'm less competent than someone who may even have less actual training than I do, or someone who believes I didn't have to do any work to get to my position, or someone who hates me just because I have received education and training that makes someone with more education and training than either of us believe I'm the man for a job.

Besides, thanks to JROTC and convincing a friend to join the summer enlistment with me, I'll be joining at a higher rank than most of my family members are currently at.

Long story short, I just meant I'll be more skilled than I am now.

[dehro]

But back to the zombies.

In the "Are handguns helpful or not" debate, I would have to throw in my two pennies as: Bring one along in case a zombie gets too close for you to swing a melee weapon efficiently.

wuh? are you sure you haven't got that one backwards?
if you've got into melee with a melee weapon it means youre hands are occupied..by said melee weapon.
if zombies get even closer than that, that is, at less than arms length..
how on earth are you going to drop your melee weapon and draw your firearm from wherever you're keeping it before the zombie has chewed away at a faceful of you?
surely melee weapon is the backup for when your firearm runs out of ammo or jams, instead of the other way around?

[Ravens_cry]

That is my thought as well.
Ranged weapons, whether guns or more old fashioned kind like bows and crossbows, are for when you have an enemy out of reach.

[TechnoScrabble]

Except that it's been proven that with most handguns, your aim actually gets worse within half of the gun's effective range. Especially when panicked.

Also, I have more than one hand, and I certainly hope I'm smart enough to know when to A) Cut it and run B) Drop my weapon and grab another and my favorite C) Stay the eff away from the zombie in the first place.

Also, bullets will be harder to get, and if I had to kill a single zombie, I'd trust a shovel, sledge, or my forget-me-stick (it's a wooden tire pressure tester that semi drivers use, but I put nails through the top and use it for home defense) to get a quick, quiet kill much more than I'd trust a gun.

Though still, any combat should be avoided.

Also, crowbars make bad weapons as they have a wonky center of mass and are no fun to swing, and melee weapons make much more noise that one would expect.

Keep the handgun loaded and somewhere you can easily get to it so that if something does grab your arm, your free hand can whip up and say, "BLAM!"

[UserClone]

M249 (scary good with that, actually)

Lol, you're great with a SAW? So is pretty much anyone that can point and shoot, adjusting as they go. Seriously, I was a crack shot with a saw after like four seconds of instruction.


Anywho, I'd be that obnoxious but indispensable guy with all of the obscure but useful facts and knowledge, and the sarcastic attitude. Also, I own a copy of this:

[Traab]

One thing ive honestly wondered about our highly trained soldier/cop types here that have actually used their gun on somebody else. How was your accuracy while firing? I ask because, unlike a human who has a large number of vulnerable points that cover a rather sizeable area, head shot zombies are a way smaller target.

As a visual reference, im a deer hunter, and when I do target practice, the vital area im aiming for with my bow and arrows is roughly the size of the inner ring of a standard paper plate. Now, I can hit that at 30 yards 95% of the time. (meh, random flinches happen sometimes) A human skull though? Id say straight on thats at best half the target area, maybe even a third. Even in low stress scenarios, I wouldnt estimate my accuracy as being better than maybe 75%. In a high stress combat scenario against a moving target? No freaking way would I want to rely on my accuracy. It might be easier at range with a scoped rifle, that practically feels like cheating, but when dealing with zombies heading right for me? I just dont know how well id do.

So i ask those with actual experience in shooting something that wants to kill you too, how accurate would you judge your placement to be? Because a large part of me honestly thinks that 90% of us talking big about setting up sniper nests or going rambo and slaughtering zombies, are going to die when the day arrives, because although we can hit small targets at a shooting range fairly well, when its life or death, we wont be nearly as effective. And I dont like the idea of needing 6 shots per zombie because I cant hit such a relatively small target that is coming towards me to eat me.

[Johel]

Our families - shock! - are on or near our bases. Deserting to protect them would be counterproductive. Hell, knowing most Army spouses I've met, they'd probably wind up fighting alongside their husbands.

For the "our families are in the base", that true for the US military, I guess.
Not the case in most European armies :
Families of military personel are settled outside the bases, except for some sensitive positions.
Because our bases aren't the size of freaking cities.
Well... some of them do cover large areas but that's only because of the space needed for firing exercice.
Not because of the resident population.

I guess we would have to define "near the base" but yeah, you make a valid point :
If the first order of business is "put in safety the loved ones of our troops", then the military will remain an effective tool even when the pandemy starts to spread

[Coidzor]

I guess we would have to define "near the base" but yeah, you make a valid point :
If the first order of business is "put in safety the loved ones of our troops", then the military will remain an effective tool even when the pandemy starts to spread

If they're living near the bases anyway then that's a basic no-brainer as you want a fairly safe buffer around the perimeter of the base anyway.

[TechnoScrabble]

One thing ive honestly wondered about our highly trained soldier/cop types here that have actually used their gun on somebody else. How was your accuracy while firing? I ask because, unlike a human who has a large number of vulnerable points that cover a rather sizeable area, head shot zombies are a way smaller target.

As a visual reference, im a deer hunter, and when I do target practice, the vital area im aiming for with my bow and arrows is roughly the size of the inner ring of a standard paper plate. Now, I can hit that at 30 yards 95% of the time. (meh, random flinches happen sometimes) A human skull though? Id say straight on thats at best half the target area, maybe even a third. Even in low stress scenarios, I wouldnt estimate my accuracy as being better than maybe 75%. In a high stress combat scenario against a moving target? No freaking way would I want to rely on my accuracy. It might be easier at range with a scoped rifle, that practically feels like cheating, but when dealing with zombies heading right for me? I just dont know how well id do.

So i ask those with actual experience in shooting something that wants to kill you too, how accurate would you judge your placement to be? Because a large part of me honestly thinks that 90% of us talking big about setting up sniper nests or going rambo and slaughtering zombies, are going to die when the day arrives, because although we can hit small targets at a shooting range fairly well, when its life or death, we wont be nearly as effective. And I dont like the idea of needing 6 shots per zombie because I cant hit such a relatively small target that is coming towards me to eat me.

And even then only the upper skull houses brain.

But a big enough gun with enough stopping power can actually damage the brain when hitting the chest.

[Traab]

And even then only the upper skull houses brain.

But a big enough gun with enough stopping power can actually damage the brain when hitting the chest.

Hmm, i wonder if it would damage the brain ENOUGH though. As an example of what I mean, iirc, in the survival guide it mentions significant brain damage has to occur. You cant take a hypodermic needle, jab it into the brain, and have the zombie fall over. You have to do some fairly noticeable damage to the brain. Anyways, id imagine the kind of ammo that could do brain damage with a torso shot would likely be fairly significant in size and weight.

[TechnoScrabble]

A man in Florida recently took three ten mm rounds to the upper torso and would have survived if the impact hadn't pulped the bunch of nerves that connect the spinal nervous system to the brain. Granted, they were fired from a carbine, not a handgun as ten mm rounds usually are, but still.

And my second uncle on my mother's side died when taking a 16 gauge shot to the chest, but the autopsy said the force of the shot had given him a concussion, though the holes in his lungs killed him before the concussion did.

Also, I'ma sig that comment about me being unkillable.

[Traab]

I dunno, the 10mm one sounds like it was a pretty random chance type of thing. And while I can believe the 16 gauge could produce enough of a shock to give a concussion, i dont think that would count as significant enough head trauma to kill a zombie. Even if it did, thats still some large ammo, relatively speaking, so not the best choice for stocking up.

[Solaris]

wuh? are you sure you haven't got that one backwards?
if you've got into melee with a melee weapon it means youre hands are occupied..by said melee weapon.
if zombies get even closer than that, that is, at less than arms length..
how on earth are you going to drop your melee weapon and draw your firearm from wherever you're keeping it before the zombie has chewed away at a faceful of you?
surely melee weapon is the backup for when your firearm runs out of ammo or jams, instead of the other way around?

If your firearm jams, you deserve to be eaten.

That is my thought as well.
Longarms, bows, and crossbows, are for when you have an enemy out of reach.

Fixed it for ya. A rifle is awkward in melee. A pistol, less so than pretty much any actual melee weapon. You're not dueling with swords, you only have to defend against the zombie's own (admittedly dangerous) limbs. The pistol gives you the immediate I Win button for melee combat, rather than having to spend thirty seconds putting the zombie dow - time you might not have in a place where you don't have room to swing a weapon. Knives are similar, but blades have an annoying tendency to break off in skulls... assuming you have the arm strength to reliably break through the skull. I don't know how much force that takes; I've yet to actually try stabbing someone. My preferred melee weapons are crowbars, hammers, that sort of thing.
I likes to tenderize 'em 'fore I eats 'em.

Lol, you're great with a SAW? So is pretty much anyone that can point and shoot, adjusting as they go. Seriously, I was a crack shot with a saw after like four seconds of instruction.

Hush you.

If it makes you feel better, I openly acknowledge that I'm pretty much standard-issue combat arms (which is why the idea of a zombie outbreak doesn't frighten me). There's a lot of guys who're better than me at what I do. I just say I'm good with the SAW 'cause I don't need to walk to the target and use a bipod to hit anything - I can fire the sucker in controlled bursts from the hip and hit my target's center of mass.

*Snip*

Fifty percent accuracy to hit center of mass with aimed fire is doing pretty good in a real-world situation, at least in my experience.
That's why they tell us to double-tap. Bwahaa!

For the "our families are in the base", that true for the US military, I guess.
Not the case in most European armies :
Families of military personel are settled outside the bases, except for some sensitive positions.
Because our bases aren't the size of freaking cities.
Well... some of them do cover large areas but that's only because of the space needed for firing exercice.
Not because of the resident population.

I guess we would have to define "near the base" but yeah, you make a valid point :
If the first order of business is "put in safety the loved ones of our troops", then the military will remain an effective tool even when the pandemy starts to spread

Watch, next you'll tell me that your defense spending isn't higher than the GDP of some countries.

That's why I said on or near, neh? Don't your bases have small cities/towns nearby and/or adjacent to post where most of your people live? Provided the outbreak isn't too far gone by the time we start moving, it'd be a simple task of setting up on rooftops and picking off the zombies. I'm not sure about y'all, but there's really little difference in the makeup of the buildings between the two.

[TechnoScrabble]

If your firearm jams, you deserve to be eaten.

That's why they tell us to double-tap. Bwahaa!

Seconded.

But by double tap, surely you mean 'two shots fire in rapid succession with intent to ensure lethality on target'?

My recruiter verbally tore the last CoD obsessed kid he heard say double tap a new one. And don't ask about the guy who asked his firing range instructor for more 'clips.'

[Solaris]

But by double tap, surely you mean 'two shots fire in rapid succession with intent to ensure lethality on target'?

Okay, okay. "Controlled pair" is the Army term for it. I try not to use jargon around civilians. It confuses them - especially if it's jargon someone invented to get a bullet on their OER.

My recruiter verbally tore the last CoD obsessed kid he heard say double tap a new one. And don't ask about the guy who asked his firing range instructor for more 'clips.'

There's a word for people like that. Both of them, really... but mostly the recruiter and the instructor. The kids didn't know better. The NCOs should.

[UserClone]

If your firearm jams, you deserve to be eaten.

Hear, here.

Fixed it for ya. A rifle is awkward in melee. A pistol, less so than pretty much any actual melee weapon. You're not dueling with swords, you only have to defend against the zombie's own (admittedly dangerous) limbs. The pistol gives you the immediate I Win button for melee combat, rather than having to spend thirty seconds putting the zombie dow - time you might not have in a place where you don't have room to swing a weapon. Knives are similar, but blades have an annoying tendency to break off in skulls... assuming you have the arm strength to reliably break through the skull. I don't know how much force that takes; I've yet to actually try stabbing someone. My preferred melee weapons are crowbars, hammers, that sort of thing.
I likes to tenderize 'em 'fore I eats 'em.

Bayonetted M16A2 suits me. Butt-Smash! Thrust!

Hush you.

If it makes you feel better, I openly acknowledge that I'm pretty much standard-issue combat arms (which is why the idea of a zombie outbreak doesn't frighten me). There's a lot of guys who're better than me at what I do. I just say I'm good with the SAW 'cause I don't need to walk to the target and use a bipod to hit anything - I can fire the sucker in controlled bursts from the hip and hit my target's center of mass.

Ah. And in a situation where hitting center of mass actually mattered, I'd be right there with you. No, I think a suppressed 22 would be better, or even a suppressed AR-15.

[Story Time]

{{scrubbed}}

[Starwulf]

{{scrubbed}}

Not that Solaris needs me to defend him(he's done pretty damn well on his own in this thread), but he was merely making a very valid observation about the failings of body armor in general. It really isn't all that effective, a very high-powered rifle will tear right through it, and even a lucky hit from a good pistol has a chance of penetration, and obviously, there is none for your face/head, which in a zombie apocalypse(and this is why his statement was especially valid) most survivors are going to be people who have known to go for head-shots from the start, and are now quite proficient at hitting that particular target, hence Body armor doing little for you but slowing you down in general.

[dehro]

If your firearm jams, you deserve to be eaten.

fair enough..still.. the notion of a firearm as a backup for a melee weapon doesn't make sense to me, especially in zombiegeddon. I may not have a military background but I do remember a thing or two about my martial arts training. if you're using a melee weapon and find out as you go that it's ineffective it's kinda too late to start fumbling for your gun.
I know that ammo scarcity is an issue, but when you're at enough of a distance from the zombies to be able to safely choose between firearm or melee weapon, before things get hectic, I'd say it's more an alternative than it is a backup.
and as alternatives go... since we're talking about creatures that are highly infectuous and serious opponents in a physical confrontation (otherwise they wouldn't have wiped out most of the rest of humanity, not everybody is a clueless shambling moron before being zombified)..I'd rather use up my bullets and try to scavenge for more, than risk a physical confrontation with a zombie when I have a bullet left to shoot.
every time you can avoid getting into a melee is one less high-risk situation where you could be infected... a spray of zombie-goo/blood, a bite, a scratch..a nr x zombie jumping you from behind while you're focussing on the ones you have noticed... if I have to assume that any of these could infect me.. (for all I would know right then, the zombies only need to "breathe" on or get close to me to infect me)
too many things could go wrong in melee for me to want to consider firearms as the backup and melee as the primary solution.

it may put me at a disadvantage against fellow survivors..but we're talking zombiegeddon here.. I expect that most of my random encounters would be with zombies..otherwise I'd call it a temporary zombie infestation and nothing more...

[Karoht]

@Traps
Never underestimate the effectiveness of some cord/wire, held at ankle, knee, and neck heights. Add some tin cans to it and you have yourself an early warning system. Simple as hell.

Setting Snares and Pits is also possibly a good call. The snare might only catch one zombie, but if 5 are rushing you, now you only have 4 to deal with right away, and one to deal with later. The pit might pick up one or two zombies and keep them out of your hair for a while. A full trench dug around your encampment, along with a high wall on the other side, and appropriate fortifications to match, has a value that can not be understated.


When it comes to traps, think about 3 things
-Reuse
-Supplies
-Time

If it uses lots of time or takes supplies to use, odds are it's not a design you want to use, especially if it will only ever work once. The perfect trap takes few supplies, is set up in seconds, and is reusable virtually forever. Hence why snares and triplines are good if you can set them up in predictable incoming pathways. Also, cordage is easy to make, and probably easy to come by, and a variety of cordage can be used, from fishing line (it's more valuable useage is fishing unless there are zombie fish or polluted water) to rope, even some chain. Whereas a pit trap will take time to dig, but all you need is digging impliments and some long branches. Benefit to both is that ANYONE can tie a snare, ANYONE can dig a hole, so long as there is downtime.

Also, check traps often, in a team of 3. One to handle the trap, 2 sets of eyes to keep watch. If you catch an animal and it stirs up a commotion, it can attract the zombies. If you catch a zombie and it makes noise, it can attract more zombies. If you improperly handle the catch, you risk infection, injury, or damaging the trap, as well as the catch escaping.

Lastly, don't rely on traps for scouting or detection of threats. Nothing beats a good set of eyes and a voice to yell back a warning.


============
@Dehro-Range VS Melee
This is why I volunteer myself to be in melee with supporting cover fire from others behind me. I hold the choke point so that they don't get rushed, and get those few more rounds off without a zombie trying to eat them. If there is no choke point, odds are I'm more or less causing the zombies to cluster on me, making the range targeting easier as well, rather than having spread out targets.
But I am placing myself at extreme risk to do so. I'm aware of that.

[noparlpf]

Cans are great. Last year during Humans vs Zombies tags through windows were allowed. My roommate was a zombie, and he opened the windows. Assuming this was some plan to tag me, I put my mattress across the windows, covered it and the window sill with empty soda cans, and slept on the floor out of reach of the windows.

[Story Time]

@Traps

Some good thoughts in that post. It made me ponder the level of camouflage required for a trap line, depending on its visibility, to fool a pursuing zombie. We can easily say, "Tradition tells us that zombies are stupid," but I would hate to under-estimate any opponent, zombie or other-wise.

The post also made me think about using caught animals as bait for the zombies themselves.

I also do not know very much about spring-step traps. The kind that will bite down on a leg? I wondered how useful they would be as a trap if someone found one and whether such a trap would hold a zombie, or simply sever the zombie's limb from itself.

[Traab]

I have a question for the military types among us. I know that claymores are a shape charge explosive, so the ball bearings go forwards instead of in a circle, but how close behind one can you stand safely? What im getting at is, say I manage to raid an army depot and get my hands on a backpack full of claymores. Im being pursued by a large swarm of zombies and want to slow them down, so I quickly shove a claymore into the ground and start running again. How far away do I have to be before I dont risk injuring myself by triggering the claymore? And whats the sound like as well? I wouldnt want to go deaf because I triggered one 10 yards behind me.

[Solaris]

{{scrubbed}}

Starwulf hit it pretty good, so I'm just gonna add this:

Whuh?

fair enough..still.. the notion of a firearm as a backup for a melee weapon doesn't make sense to me, especially in zombiegeddon. I may not have a military background but I do remember a thing or two about my martial arts training. if you're using a melee weapon and find out as you go that it's ineffective it's kinda too late to start fumbling for your gun.

My ideal would be the carbine, with the pistol as the close-range backup and then a melee weapon for the 'all else fails' situation. I really like the underarm/shoulder holster if I'm not in armor, but if you can swing it get a pistol in the underarm and another on the hip.
I hadn't thought about the 'fumble for weapon' part - I should have, considering all the time I've had to spend drilling on the reload and drawing the weapon. My advice in a fighting-type apocalypse is to get really familiar with where you keep all of your weapons, and keep them in a variety of easy-to-reach places. You never know when you (or a buddy) might have to reach them and somehow have difficulty reaching your normal weapon. They certainly don't need to be hand-cannons, either - that might even be counter-productive, considering a 9mm can do wonders to a head at close range while a big honkin' Desert Eagle has big honkin' recoil. (Aside: I knew a Marine infantryman whose unit SOP included keeping magazines on their backs so they'd have an easy-to-reach reload when stacked up in addition to the mags on the belly and possible thigh pouches - just to get an idea of what I'm talking about).

[QUOTE=dehro;12959276]-On Melee-QUOTE]

I agree pretty much completely with this. Fighting a zombie is the worst-case scenario, the one you want to avoid at pretty much any cost.

Lastly, don't rely on traps for scouting or detection of threats. Nothing beats a good set of eyes and a voice to yell back a warning.

Amen!

[dehro]

@Dehro-Range VS Melee
This is why I volunteer myself to be in melee with supporting cover fire from others behind me. I hold the choke point so that they don't get rushed, and get those few more rounds off without a zombie trying to eat them. If there is no choke point, odds are I'm more or less causing the zombies to cluster on me, making the range targeting easier as well, rather than having spread out targets.
But I am placing myself at extreme risk to do so. I'm aware of that.

wow..you've got a lot of trust in your buddies' marksmanship, putting yourself in the line of fire and all that

"Tradition tells us that zombies are stupid," but I would hate to under-estimate any opponent, zombie or other-wise.

stupid yes, but if they managed to wipe out the rest of humanity, clearly they must have some quality that lets them overpower or outmanouvre your average human being (and even a few of the less average)
that would make me stop and think twice