7 Famous Zombie Killing Weapons That Would Get You Killed

[Thorn]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-famous-zombie-movie-weapons-that-would-get-you-killed/?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=Movies+%26+TV&wa_user3=blog&wa_user4=feature_module

[rongravy]

My kid thought the kitana was a good idea.
Pffffft.
I don't need an article to tell me it isn't...

[Sammich]

I could never understand the obssession with shotguns. If you ever owned and shot one (which I doubt most of the zombie "experts" have) then it would become quickly noticable that:

1) 12 gauge ammunition is bulky and heavy.

The standard 12ga pump action will hold 5 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. Yes there are others such as the Mossberg 590 that hold 8+1, but still for the same amount of weight,
or less in most cases, you could have a rifle or pistol caliber semi-auto carbine that will hold 20-30 rounds in a quickly changed out magazine.

2) you DO have to aim a shotgun

Using a standard 18.5" cylinder (or improved cylinder) choke barrel, the shot spread of the usual law enforcement issue 00 buckshot out to 10 feet is about the size of the palm of your hand.
This completely busts the rampant myth that you don't have to aim a shotgun.

[blind2d]

Machete it is! Also, I'm an Engineer, so if any of my body parts get torn off they grow back as crazy weapons!

[Brubaker]

I'd much rather have a shotgun than a baseball bat or hammer, both of which have been used as "zombie killing weapons" in one form of media or another.

[acealive1]

gattling gun ala blaine from predator. if it didnt kill them, they wouldnt be coming after you anymore.

[Ragnarr]

The spread of shotgun shot will vary depending on how far away the target you're firing at is and also how short (or long) your barrel is. The again, you can enjoy firing pumpkin balls (one heeping helping of a slug per shell). I'd say my sawed off double barrel 12 gauge, a sling or two full of 00 buck, a pocket full of pumpkin ball mag shells, and a good baseball bat would do the trick for me in most zed situations.

[Darksider18]

Ohhh well ive seen the shotgun being used alot but also i see them throwing it away when it needs reloading, to then switch to their sidearm. So i would say the shotgun would get you killed, especially if u dont have a sidearm. Because lets face it, every confrontation in a horror movie involves more than 10 enemies at one time, and the average shotgun only holds 6 or 8 shells. So basically... You Beh Gangfucked before ya get a chance to reload bitch!

[blind2d]

I'm going to say something... guns are just dumb for killing zombies. They're loud, they need reloading, and yeah. Melee weapons for me only. Maybe a crossbow, but... nah, not me. If they're far enough away where you can't get them with a melee weapon, then they're not much of a danger, as long as they don't sneak up on you.

[Ragnarr]

Ohhh well ive seen the shotgun being used alot but also i see them throwing it away when it needs reloading, to then switch to their sidearm. So i would say the shotgun would get you killed, especially if u dont have a sidearm. Because lets face it, every confrontation in a horror movie involves more than 10 enemies at one time, and the average shotgun only holds 6 or 8 shells. So basically... You Beh Gangfucked before ya get a chance to reload bitch!

I guess it would depend more of the situation you're in at the moment. Fighting zombies is like playing golf; you need a certain type of club for a certain type of ground. If there were two or three zeds in front of you AND you're by yourself AND you do not mind some noise at the moment... than Mr. Shotgun is the tool you need. If you need to be quiet in the same situation, then Mr. Baseball Bat should be used instead. If you're confronted by a horde of zeds, the tool you need is yo' feets cuz deys gonna git yo' punk azz! Oh sorry, turned street there for a moment (ahem). I meant to say that you'd be overrun by them so running away would be the strategy in that situation.

[Thorn]

I'm going to say something... guns are just dumb for killing zombies. They're loud, they need reloading, and yeah. Melee weapons for me only. Maybe a crossbow, but... nah, not me. If they're far enough away where you can't get them with a melee weapon, then they're not much of a danger, as long as they don't sneak up on you.

I think it is situational but I totally agree, to a point. I think you need to do something to mitigate the fluid issue so your zombie fighting kit needs to include a mask and cover from head to toe.

PERSONALLY I am not a fan of any of the weapons they all have limitations and short comings. Personally I would want a trident, spear, or halberd. A long pole arm that can keep zeds off you. The thing is if they closed on you then you would need an alternative. Really a 3-5 man kill team would be ideal. 1-2 guys with pole arms to create and keep distance, and then a guy to kill at range (spear and so on) then a catcher who mops up close quarters anything that gets through with a shield of some kind and a short sword (double sided long sword type would be fine or a Xiphos)... and one guy with ranged weapons crossbow/bow/guns) in case the zeds are already aware you are there it it is time to create space and get the hell out of there.

Flaws to the theory? Sure but there is no perfect theory.

[Yojimbo]

I could never understand the obssession with shotguns. If you ever owned and shot one (which I doubt most of the zombie "experts" have) then it would become quickly noticable that:

1) 12 gauge ammunition is bulky and heavy.

The standard 12ga pump action will hold 5 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. Yes there are others such as the Mossberg 590 that hold 8+1, but still for the same amount of weight,
or less in most cases, you could have a rifle or pistol caliber semi-auto carbine that will hold 20-30 rounds in a quickly changed out magazine.

2) you DO have to aim a shotgun

Using a standard 18.5" cylinder (or improved cylinder) choke barrel, the shot spread of the usual law enforcement issue 00 buckshot out to 10 feet is about the size of the palm of your hand.
This completely busts the rampant myth that you don't have to aim a shotgun.

Though I still like the shotgun as a weapon, articles like this are usually written by some dude overly pleased with himself who has no pratical experience with firearms. They are pretty much talking out of their ass with their only real source material being Max Brooks, another guy who talks out of his ass.

-- -------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------


Ohhh well ive seen the shotgun being used alot but also i see them throwing it away when it needs reloading, to then switch to their sidearm. So i would say the shotgun would get you killed, especially if u dont have a sidearm. Because lets face it, every confrontation in a horror movie involves more than 10 enemies at one time, and the average shotgun only holds 6 or 8 shells. So basically... You Beh Gangfucked before ya get a chance to reload bitch!

Depends on the shotgun too - there are some semi automatic shotguns that have a 10 round capacity and aftermarket mags that hold more. And throwing away your shotgun when you run out of ammo - that is some stupid scriptwriter's idea of excitement. My Mossberg holds 5 in the tube and 1 in the chamber and if I go dry so close to trouble that I have throw down my shotgun and quickly pull my sidearm, it would be more effective to use the walnut stock and the steel barrel of my empty shotgun as a fairly badass melee weapon than to pull my pistol. Yeah, I hate seeing movies where someone runs out of bullets and then tosses their piece - that is some stupidity right there!

[mpokera]

Firearms would def have a place in my zed arsenal, most likely a combination of small caliber target rifle and pistol for taking out a lone zed or two at long to medium range. Up close against a small number a machete or metal bat would be quiet and do the job quite well, if its more than a couple and they are up close its time to leave anyway! Making a heroic stand with shotgun blazing into a crowd is just going to draw a bigger crowd. As a weapon of last resort I think a shotgun would work fine, especially in close quarters, you do have to aim but you arent going to need to be very accurate as any hit is gonna at least cause some big damage and prob at least knock the target down. But after a couple of shots you better have a path clear to leave cause you will need to be somewhere else pretty quick.

I think a crossbow would be a pretty great weapon too, combining nearly the ease of use/aiming of a firearm with the near silence of a bow, but I can see finding new bolts to be an issue.

[Ragnarr]

I think it is situational but I totally agree, to a point. I think you need to do something to mitigate the fluid issue so your zombie fighting kit needs to include a mask and cover from head to toe.

PERSONALLY I am not a fan of any of the weapons they all have limitations and short comings. Personally I would want a trident, spear, or halberd. A long pole arm that can keep zeds off you. The thing is if they closed on you then you would need an alternative. Really a 3-5 man kill team would be ideal. 1-2 guys with pole arms to create and keep distance, and then a guy to kill at range (spear and so on) then a catcher who mops up close quarters anything that gets through with a shield of some kind and a short sword (double sided long sword type would be fine or a Xiphos)... and one guy with ranged weapons crossbow/bow/guns) in case the zeds are already aware you are there it it is time to create space and get the hell out of there.

Flaws to the theory? Sure but there is no perfect theory.

lol You sound as if you were one of my medieval reenactment brothers! I agree with polearms being used in team situations. I've encountered opponents who even at intermediate skill still knocked me on my arss using them. I would reckon using shields would be tricky; if you were using a hoplon or a heater shield (2 point grip, hand & forearm) it would be better suited for pushing (a la Greek Hoplite tactics) but if a zombie were to grab the shield, your arm may not be able to slip out fast enough and become trapped (trapped = you're the zombie's lunch).

A single grip shield with a center boss would be great for punching zeds in the mush as well as blocking, and you could easily release the shield if you needed to. The Xiphos (spartan short sword) I'm not convinced would be the most efficient melee weapon for fighting zeds. They're great for stabbing the living at very close quarters, but unless you used it to thrust upwards under the zed's chin and hopefully into its' brain, I don't see it stopping them much. Any bludgeoning weapon (mace, hammer, pipe, club, bat, etc) coupled with a single grip round shield would be the way to go IMO if used as part of a five man team.

I like the trident idea though. One good stab and you can keep the zed at distance while your buddy whonks it on de'haid! :)

[DEAD BEAT]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-famous-zombie-movie-weapons-that-would-get-you-killed/?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=Movies+%26+TV&wa_user3=blog&wa_user4=feature_module


what if you wore a sausage link around your neck.......perhaps not! lol

[Ragnarr]

what if you wore a sausage link around your neck.......perhaps not! lol

Hmm... I think that would depend on if it's a Jimmy Dean or not. The high cholestrol and transfats might slow the zeds down somewhat I would think.

[Darksider18]

I agree that guns are a little over-rated but... Lets put ourselves in this scenario. Your on your roof, and you have run out of supplies and food and in immediate need of more. BUT you notice from your rooftop that there are over 50 zombies in your way. What are you gonna do? Use a silenced sniper to clear your way a little? Or take a baseball bat and get eaten from all sides whilst attempting to swing it? Bear in mind you would be fatigued since your in dire need of supplies and food. Weapons would help ALOT in situations.

[Ragnarr]

I agree that guns are a little over-rated but... Lets put ourselves in this scenario. Your on your roof, and you have run out of supplies and food and in immediate need of more. BUT you notice from your rooftop that there are over 50 zombies in your way. What are you gonna do? Use a silenced sniper to clear your way a little? Or take a baseball bat and get eaten from all sides whilst attempting to swing it? Bear in mind you would be fatigued since your in dire need of supplies and food. Weapons would help ALOT in situations.

I guess that was the point I was trying to make with my "golf club" analogy. Different situations call for different tactics... and weapons. What toolbox contains only a hammer and nothing else.

[Sammich]

I agree that guns are a little over-rated but... Lets put ourselves in this scenario. Your on your roof, and you have run out of supplies and food and in immediate need of more. BUT you notice from your rooftop that there are over 50 zombies in your way. What are you gonna do? Use a silenced sniper to clear your way a little? Or take a baseball bat and get eaten from all sides whilst attempting to swing it? Bear in mind you would be fatigued since your in dire need of supplies and food. Weapons would help ALOT in situations.

In this case I would find something heavy and relatively unbreakable. Attach to some rope or electrical cords tied together. Then drop on zombie head, pull back up and repeat as necessary. Nice, quiet and doesn't require unncessary energy or risk.

-- -------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------

Here is a video for those who still cling to the "you don't have to aim a shotgun" myth.

-4oe6kjvpkg

[Wyldwraith]

Yes you have to aim a shotgun.
I say, so what? For its size, it is EASILY the most effective ballistic weapon to not only terminate the undead, but if necessary incapacitate them as well. Sidearms are wonderful, but anyone who thinks a sidearm can do the job of a shotgun in a Zombie Apocalypse, I have an experiment for you.

Find your nearest rundown abandoned building thats roof wont fall in on you, or the floor collapse the instant you step inside. Then lay out a couple fistfuls of raw hamburger and settle down to wait. In the dark. Stay standing mind you, that's important. Now, when the creepy ass sounds get to be too much, or you've had to shake and/or pull more than one squirmy squeaking/shrieking thing off you, flip on your Uber Flashlight and do your best to eliminate the CARPET of RATS before your weapon runs dry.

See what I mean? Rats are (arguably) tons less dangerous than Romero-esque zombies, but even something the size of a sneaker IN NUMBERS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THEM DANGEROUS makes obvious the need for something that can unleash an assload of destruction in a confined space in a hurry. Shoot a zombie dead-center torso from 10ft and short of some of the major hand-cannons whose ammo supply would be ridiculously hard to maintain you've done nothing. Same shot at 10-15ft AIMED with 00 buckshot or a slug and you'll likely inflict enough spinal damage to create a twitcher. Kneecap the deadheads and you can outcrawl them.

Is anyone saying a shotgun should be your PRIMARY weapon? Of course not. But a shotgun is a helluva mechanical advantage to have on your side when you've gotta move, GOTTA MOVE NOW, and need the undead cannibalistic beings in your way to be out of your way, and oh yea, while you're dog-assed tired from just being chased 16 straight miles for the last 4 hours with no longer than a 5 min rest.

Most people in our generation CAN'T WALK 15 miles and still have the energy to either a) Sprint a few hundred more meters to potential safety immediately after walking the 15 miles, or b) Inflict white brain-matter penetrating head trauma with a blunt weapon, or decapitation with an edged on more than TWICE, and twice only running on adrenaline. Same person won't be busting 2 more heads the next day, assuming they survive.

Yes, guns have their flaws in a zombie apocalypse. But to paraphrase: "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

Edit: Check out the Link to that Cracked article, about the 5-7 bugs to most avoid. Check out the video of the 30 Japanese Giant Hornets vs an entire massive beehive. It's chilling.

[Ragnarr]

@Wyldewraith: Here here! Well said, brother! :)

-- -------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------


In this case I would find something heavy and relatively unbreakable. Attach to some rope or electrical cords tied together. Then drop on zombie head, pull back up and repeat as necessary. Nice, quiet and doesn't require unncessary energy or risk.

-- -------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------

Here is a video for those who still cling to the "you don't have to aim a shotgun" myth.



I agree with your "gravity bomb" (something heavy on a rope) released from a roof top for taking out a crap load of zeds one by one. As far as "aiming" a shotgun, it's more of a generalized aim than say a rifle or a pistol as you well know. If one were to say that you DO NOT have to aim a shotgun, the poor soul is likely missing a foot or a hunting buddy due to that belief.

[Wyldwraith]

Thanks Ragnarr,
I too agree that in a Dawn '04-remake sort of situation, ie: The classic "Carpet of Undeath" that the old cinderblock-on-a-rope is an admirably effective means of inflicting serious skull trauma over and over, and over again with next to no expenditure of resources if you have the time. I've advocated this method myself in various threads.

That said, I think some people take the Brooks-ites and TWD gun-phobia a bit too far. We talk a lot about this or that author, or this or that individual or group of individuals lacking practical experience with X (where X is the weapon/technique under discussion)...but I contend that 99.8% of the people currently alive have very little understanding of the force required to cause a depressed fracture of the skull (driving parts of said skull deep into the brain), or outright penetration of the skull (with say, a pickaxe).

One of the few non-crap pieces of info from the Zombie Combat Manual concerns how one should practice cracking a skull. It goes something like this: First, take a green coconut, wrap it in a couple layers of cloth, then put it inside 2 garbage bags and roll those bags around the roundness of the coconut until you have something shaped vaguely like a human head or a speedbag. Next, suspend said wrapped-and-bagged coconut from a rope or somesuch at about head level. Finally, select your Zombie Killing blunt weapon of choice and strike the coconut as hard as you possibly can, and keep track of how many hits it took you to break into the coconut. Then realize that you're gonna need to hit a skull about +20% harder than that to do equivalent damage. So, when you're regularly caving the sides of padded green coconuts in, switch to using padded Duran-fruit. (The fibre-covered awful-stench-when-opened exotic fruit). A Duran, padded and suspended in the same manner as the green coconut can be considered anatomically equivalent in protective properties to the skull of a recently dead and reanimated ghoul.

Note: Penetrated Duran-fruit will also help you begin to acclimate to fighting while being subjected to mind-blowingly-foul stenches, as it stinks so bad that its actually illegal to open one INSIDE *anywhere* frequented by the public in countries where it grows.

In those terms, I would guess there are at this moment MAYBE *3* people on this site who could smash open 5 padded Duran-fruit with 5-8 blows in under 10 minutes, while circling and never ceasing to move at least at a fast walk during the entire process except for the moment of each strike.

*I'm NOT ONE OF THE 3*. That being the case, and since being eaten sucks, if I can't flee successfully (unlikely with a back bad enough I'm LEGALLY taking 300mg of Oxycodone DAILY) I'm going to shoot the bastards, because realistically, it would be my only viable means of terminating a ghoul. IRL a Zombie Apocalypse would be short, unimaginably brutal, and wipe us out as surely as a N.E.O the size of Delaware striking this planet.

[Ragnarr]

@Wyld: lol Awesome to hear that someone else knows about Duran! While I never actually smelled its inards, I know enough about its unpleasant effect on the olfactory nerves to refer to it as "poo-fruit" (somewhat akin to the odor of dirty diapers for those of you wondering what they smell like). They say it tastes really sweet and juicy, but you'll need a Tic-Tac or 50 when you get done eating it. :(

As far as practicing effective head strikes with clubs et al, that's something I do often with the medieval reenactment organization I'm involved with. We wear 12-14 gauge steel helmets because our rattan weapons are being swung at full force and would definitely kill an unprotected fighter.

Once again, I'm a firm believer that a zed survivor should have several weapons with him/her when moving about; something to whack the zed in the head with AND something to (BLAMO) put a hole in it at distance. Hmm... think I'm going to "pull a Daryl" and price some crossbows this weekend. :)

[Thorn]

lol You sound as if you were one of my medieval reenactment brothers! I agree with polearms being used in team situations. I've encountered opponents who even at intermediate skill still knocked me on my arss using them. I would reckon using shields would be tricky; if you were using a hoplon or a heater shield (2 point grip, hand & forearm) it would be better suited for pushing (a la Greek Hoplite tactics) but if a zombie were to grab the shield, your arm may not be able to slip out fast enough and become trapped (trapped = you're the zombie's lunch).

A single grip shield with a center boss would be great for punching zeds in the mush as well as blocking, and you could easily release the shield if you needed to. The Xiphos (spartan short sword) I'm not convinced would be the most efficient melee weapon for fighting zeds. They're great for stabbing the living at very close quarters, but unless you used it to thrust upwards under the zed's chin and hopefully into its' brain, I don't see it stopping them much. Any bludgeoning weapon (mace, hammer, pipe, club, bat, etc) coupled with a single grip round shield would be the way to go IMO if used as part of a five man team.

I like the trident idea though. One good stab and you can keep the zed at distance while your buddy wonks it on de'haid! :)

Exactly and the type of shield would be critical, if it required two hands that person is effectively just a pusher/blocker. Depending on size there is exposure, but you could wear other items to safeguard hands and elbows.

The Pjalanx worked well to push their foes back off their position the dead would topple well I think. It is of course up for debate,

I just love the pole arm idea, and in my time with SCA I learned early on the damage pole arms can do, working to pin, create space and rely on another to deliver the killing blows where needed could be just the thing in short bursts.

I agree with the others guns have a place in your arsenal they would have to IMO, but yeah. You need a variety of weapons, no one is perfect I really feel that way.

[Ragnarr]

@Thorn: Ahh, you know of the SCA then. Very kool. The problem I'd see with phalanx tactics against undead would be that toppling them doesn't remove the threat. They'd only grab and munch on the phalanxer's legs or at least grab their legs as the phalanxers attempted to walk over them. Also as you likely know from your SCA exposure, if you do a shield pass to the right of a right-handed sword & boarder, he'll need to turn into your pass or risk exposing his backside (wrap city). If someone using a heater shield (2 point grip) had that outside shield edge gripped by a zed, I think he'd be in trouble. Again, I'd stay with a center grip shield like a buckler or even a viking round shield. You can still block, you can still push (ask any roman legionaire), and of course you can always pop the zed in the mush with the center shield boss.
A broken jaw would seriously reduce a zed's attack capability unless it can somehow gum you to death. :)

[Mike70]

this is the single best line in the whole article:

Anyone who doesn't enjoy a Resident Evil movie is an idiot, because they knew exactly what they were getting into before they watched it.


:lol:

i'd prefer quieter weapons in killing zombies over firearms. sure, i'd want to have guns handy but only as a last resort. noise seems to draw zombies like fresh elephant shit draws in dung beetles. another reason that i think people who want to keep dogs in a zombie outbreak are destined for nothing but death. also your average gunshot is about 160 decibels. that sound could travel as much as 10 km under the right conditions.

my close in weapon of choice would be an Easton bomb bat. it's not going to break nor wear out anytime soon. you can generate great speed with it meaning an impact on the skull is going to do major damage. it won't get stuck in wound and doesn't have to be reloaded. the problem that the vast majority of bladed weapons would have is that they would most likely become stuck in the zombie's head. not a good thing.

the major problem i'd have with swords is that the majority of the classic ones: the roman gladius, the greek xiphos, are designed as thrusting swords, to stab up and into an enemies' vital organs. not too useful against zombies.

-- -------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------


The problem I'd see with phalanx tactics against undead would be that toppling them doesn't remove the threat.

phalanxes are only good against targets directly in front of you. they have zero lateral mobility, cannot defend themselves from side or rear attacks and would only serve to push tasty human tartar together for zombies to feast on.

you seem to know a bit about the classical world. that's cool. i'm a classicist by education. nice to have someone else around besides evilned who knows what the hell a hoplon or a xiphos is and hasn't gotten their ancient history from watching "300."

[Ragnarr]

@Mike70: Yeah, I dig ancient history in general and ancient warfare in particular. The fighting I do these days with the SCA (medieval reenactment group) helps to keep me lean, mean and ready to take on any ravenous hordes of undead with my stylin' collection of rattan weapons. Well, with those AND my trusty shotgun.

Just to give you an idea of SCA combat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5JaQq2Dakg

[Wyldwraith]

Something that's bugged me for a long while,
I can understand why a relatively near (within or almost within a possible sight-line to the shooter at the time of the gunshot(s)) could draw zombies to the shooter. Loud noise stimulates zombies to look about for potential prey, and they then lock-in on the shooter. Fair enough.

The problem I have are zombies well outside of line-of-sight homing in on gunshots. Yes, if you're fairly close your hearing can SOMETIMES provide you with the general direction of where the sound originated. However, general direction and homing in on a shooter that was half a mile away like an undead human-seeking missile has never made much sense to me. The average human being couldn't locate a shooter going by the sounds of 3-6 gunshots in rapid succession, and they have brainpower to help them solve the problem.

Good example: The empty (except for zombies) streets of Atlanta when Rick rode in on horseback. All those skyscrapers/multi-story buildings would, in the absence of the regular sounds of the city, echo and bounce around a piercing noise like gunshots until the reverberations seem to be coming from MULTIPLE directions. Similar to echoes in mountainous areas.

I've got no problem with nearby zombies investigating a sound for possible prey, but it just seems weird that ghouls which their creators insist are mindless instinct-driven animated cadavers do a better job of homing in on the true location a distant sound originated from than thinking human beings.

Also, while I understand a zombie investigating something like the thud and cursing under her breath Andrea caused in the RV bathroom, why would a faint "boom" in the distance = possible prey to a mindless creature? If that were the case there would be crowds of zombies flocking to stand under power lines in response to the loud "Kaw, Kaw" of crows sitting on the utility lines, or a huge crowd of zombies homing in on a building with a working generator as the thermostat caused the outside AC unit to suddenly kick on?

See what I mean? There are tons and tons of noises that occur either naturally or as a result of abandoned human habitations/population centers degradation. (5 years into the Zombie Apocalypse, when a 3-story building's support-structure has been corroded by standing water getting in through breaches/leaks in the roof until it finally collapses. Would this extremely loud echoing sound of a large building falling in on itself draw tens of thousands of ghouls to the twisted pile of building materials that remain?)

[Mike70]

i think that any sound that reminds zombies of humans will draw them in. guns, dogs barking (an animal that cannot be tolerated in a zombie outbreak), machine noise from things that might still be active, car alarms going off. any kind of noise associated with people would cause them to home in.

human ears are much better at tracking sound than you might think. hell, the threshold of human hearing is about a billionth of atmospheric pressure. you hear much faster than you see. again, your average gun shot is about 160 dbs. under the right conditions sound that loud can literally travel kilometers. the human ear responds to the widest range of stimuli of any sense. don't ever dismiss a person or zombie's ability to home in on sound. we are actually quite good at it.

-- -------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------


T
*I'm NOT ONE OF THE 3*. That being the case, and since being eaten sucks, if I can't flee successfully (unlikely with a back bad enough I'm LEGALLY taking 300mg of Oxycodone DAILY) I'm going to shoot the bastards, because realistically, it would be my only viable means of terminating a ghoul.

damn man, sorry to hear that. i see the angle you are coming from much better now. you need lots of ammo and a flag to plant for your last stand.

[Ragnarr]

Yeah, the TWD writers seem inconsistant with zombie abilities at times. I thought the same thing as you during that RV scene where Andrea is hiding in the bathroom and that zed found her based on a few suttle noises. Unless of course that zed was also zeroing in on her scent, which I'm sure is sexy. ;)

The zeds being drawn to distant gunshot I agree is weird. Gunshot echoes, especially in an urban environment, are difficult if not impossible even for trained policemen to locate much less mindless walking corpses. I can buy the premise if the zeds are nearby (like 100 yards or so), but not if they're miles away.

Lastly, yes. If a building corrodes and collapses, the area is sure to look like a zombified version of Woodstock due to the sound of the crash. If zed writers say as much, than it must be so and we must accept it.

[Wyldwraith]

@Mike70:
Thanks man. Makes me feel better when someone "gets it." For everyone else, when you suffer from a severe chronic physical condition of some sort you eventually learn to see your life and the world through the lens of the limitations you're saddled with. In my case, that means/meant learning that since anything more than light casual movement (no lifting anything heavier than a shotgun, EXTREMELY limited capability of moving faster than a fast walk, no contorting of limbs into unusual/fully extended positions and, ABOVE ALL, no going more than 3-3 @ 1/2hrs MAXIMUM without the next dose of pain meds and muscle relaxer). It's not a matter of lack of functionality, just functionality being limited/inhibited by severe pain.

Now I've had reason to learn that adrenaline can do a great job in the short term of blocking out the pain so I can function as normal. (Couple of severe altercations defending either myself or a woman who couldn't defend herself. Heh, you'd think I'd have knocked the White Knight stuff off after I got crippled to begin with, but apparently not.) So I know that if I HAD TO I could function at 90-92.5% for a few hours, or 100-100+% for a few minutes if the motivation (not getting eaten certainly qualifies) was sufficient.

You called it though. I'm pretty much good for only 2 things. 1) A Last Stander, which might allow others to make good an escape, or at least thin out the local zombie population. 2) Static defender and jack-of-all-trades in a secured structure. Sounds kinda nutty, but I actually do make a point of picking up a couple boxes of 12-gauge shells and a couple boxes of (God, they've gotten expensive) .45 rounds. The last time I did a rough inventory I'm up to something like 37-40 boxes of 00 buck and 3 inch magnum slugs and about half that in .45 ammunition. Plus about 5 120-count boxes of .22lr (man's gotta eat). Not an armory by any means, but in a hypothetical Zombie Apocalypse I'd grab my 3 guns, backpack and my Z.A.K and pull a couple of muscles pushing the garage mini-fridge up the attic fold-down stairs in the garage then clip the string you grab to pull the stairs down and head out through the skylight we had put in when we let Hyperion Systems put solar panels on the roof.

That's where I'd plant my flag if no better options presented themselves. Me running away from the undead would be as stupid as a zombie.

[Mike70]

@Mike70:
Thanks man. Makes me feel better when someone "gets it." For everyone else, when you suffer from a severe chronic physical condition of some sort you eventually learn to see your life and the world through the lens of the limitations you're saddled with. In my case, that means/meant learning that since anything more than light casual movement (no lifting anything heavier than a shotgun, EXTREMELY limited capability of moving faster than a fast walk, no contorting of limbs into unusual/fully extended positions and, ABOVE ALL, no going more than 3-3 @ 1/2hrs MAXIMUM without the next dose of pain meds and muscle relaxer). It's not a matter of lack of functionality, just functionality being limited/inhibited by severe pain.

Now I've had reason to learn that adrenaline can do a great job in the short term of blocking out the pain so I can function as normal. (Couple of severe altercations defending either myself or a woman who couldn't defend herself. Heh, you'd think I'd have knocked the White Knight stuff off after I got crippled to begin with, but apparently not.) So I know that if I HAD TO I could function at 90-92.5% for a few hours, or 100-100+% for a few minutes if the motivation (not getting eaten certainly qualifies) was sufficient.

You called it though. I'm pretty much good for only 2 things. 1) A Last Stander, which might allow others to make good an escape, or at least thin out the local zombie population. 2) Static defender and jack-of-all-trades in a secured structure. Sounds kinda nutty, but I actually do make a point of picking up a couple boxes of 12-gauge shells and a couple boxes of (God, they've gotten expensive) .45 rounds. The last time I did a rough inventory I'm up to something like 37-40 boxes of 00 buck and 3 inch magnum slugs and about half that in .45 ammunition. Plus about 5 120-count boxes of .22lr (man's gotta eat). Not an armory by any means, but in a hypothetical Zombie Apocalypse I'd grab my 3 guns, backpack and my Z.A.K and pull a couple of muscles pushing the garage mini-fridge up the attic fold-down stairs in the garage then clip the string you grab to pull the stairs down and head out through the skylight we had put in when we let Hyperion Systems put solar panels on the roof.

That's where I'd plant my flag if no better options presented themselves. Me running away from the undead would be as stupid as a zombie.

that few minutes of maximum function might just save your ass (literally) from zombies.

.22lr is nothing to dismiss. .22 wouldn't be bad in a zombie situation. sure they aren't flashy or as powerful as other bullets but they have one big advantage over other ammo sizes: because they are so much lighter than most other bullets, you can carry a shitload of .22 without much problem.

[Wyldwraith]

::nods::
I have a great deal of respect for .22s, well, the high-quality ones anyways. A good .22 is as hard to fuck up as AK-47s are reputed to be. Useful trait when you can't just run down to the local sporting goods store and have an issue with your piece cleaned up for ya. At close range (the range at which most firearm engagements happen anyways) a .22 could quite handily get the job done and much more quietly.

That said, in any sort of collapse-of-civilization scenario, other humans wanting to take what you've got would be as hazardous or even moreso than any other threat. I wouldn't want to end up in a shootout with a couple of weekend warriors turned looters packing AR-15s vs. a .22 though. In the final analysis however, my choice of weapons has been more motivated by what I proved to be most comfortable with than anything else. I'm sure there are other ways one could go that are equally viable firearms-wise *for someone else*. I've probably shot 1200-1600 rounds/shells each through my 12-gauge and .45 back when I went to the range a lot with my stepdad, not to mention time spent hunting pre-injuries. I don't think Familiarity with a firearm is a trait that can be overstated. So ultimately, the best choice for everyone/anyone will be determined by their personal experience.

Personally, I think that (along with First Aid training and basic land navigation) everyone should put in the effort to become proficient and familiar with a firearm of their choice. The gun in your hand is tons less likely to let you down than a government response-interval to a major crisis. That, and cops can't prevent crime, just clean up the mess.

But yea, you're right Mike, if something was trying to eat me alive I'd most likely discover heretofore unknown reserves of stamina. ;)

[babomb]

I always thought a good weapon would be one of those cattle killers like the guy has in "No Country For Old Men". Just adapted to be on the end of a pole. It uses compressed air to shoot a small cylinder out but then retracts the cylinder. By no means a 'tactical' weapon, although it is almost completely silent. But overall the best thing to do would be to avoid a confrontation at all costs. If you're going around takin on zombies like you're the terminator, then it's only a matter of time until it bites you on the ass.
So the absolute best weapon against a zombie would be your brain. They need to be lured into a controlled environment and killed in a manner that doesn't require precious resources, such as ammo or human energy. That's my biggest problem with melee weapons of any style. They take alot of energy to use. Energy that wouldn't really be easy to come by in a world where you might not eat for days at a time, or where you're always on the verge of dehydration. You use up all your energy swinging a heavy weapon around, what happens if you have no other choice but to make a hasty retreat and you have no energy left to run?

[Mike70]

::nods::


In the final analysis however, my choice of weapons has been more motivated by what I proved to be most comfortable with than anything else. )
i think you've hit it right on the head here. anyone can pick up a gun and shoot it but being comfortable with it, knowing how to maintain it, knowing what kind of ammo works best is something that has to be learned.

i have a decent assortment of firearms. 2 9mms, 2 shotguns, 2 .30-06 hunting rifles, and a 1943 WWII Enfield (which still works quite well). i probably need a smaller caliber weapon to compliement it all. on another note: i'd love to see what that Enfield would do to a zombie's skull. :lol:

[babomb]

My favorite is always gonna be that ol Winchester Model12-20ga. I even prefer it to the Rem870 20ga because it's got more character. It's a slam gun. Meaning, there's no disconnect between the firing mechanism and the action. So as long as you hold down the trigger it will continue to fire while you cycle the action. Modern firearms won't do that, you have to pull the trigger after you cycle it for it to fire. The downside of an old gun like a Model12 is that parts are hard to come by. But parts between the Model12-20 and the 16ga version are interchangeable. So the 16 has been reduced to backup parts for the 20. 16ga ammo is even more expensive than 20ga though so it makes little difference to me.
I have an older .22 also, which is fun to shoot since ammo is cheap and abundant. So those would be my 2 main weapons, the .22 and the 20ga. I'm not much on pistols, I have an old 38 revolver and have been tempted to get a modern sidearm like a 9mm maybe. I just can't justify droppping the cash with the economy being so bad and money being so tight.

[Thorn]

I love the idea of building a maze out of concrete around your base, this came up in a comic (title withheld) and it struck me as brilliant, Zombies are dumb they would stagger around and get lost and eventually lose interest. You could walk a gangplank above to kill them at range when the maze was full. This would keep pressure off of important walls and distribute the load within the maze so no one wall was taking a constant pounding. It would also enable you to be able to get in and out through another mean while keeping them corralled in the maze.

There are kinks in the system I am sure that would need to be worked out but from a theoretical standpoint I like it a great deal.

[krakenslayer]

There is one aspect of the mythology that was established in Night and continued in Dawn that seems to have been forgotten by everyone (including Romero himself).

ZOMBIES ARE SCARED OF FIRE!

[mpokera]

There is one aspect of the mythology that was established in Night and continued in Dawn that seems to have been forgotten by everyone (including Romero himself).

ZOMBIES ARE SCARED OF FIRE!

While its true that NOTLD and DOTLD do indeed establish this fact, I think that later works have actually for the most part gone away from this enough to make it not canon anymore. And for my two cents I think it makes more sense that they wouldnt be than that they would. I think of zombies as mindless eating machines not concerned for their own safety or pain at all. While they might walk around a fire if possible, if they are chasing prey I think they would walk right into a flame and ignore the fact that they were burning as they kept attacking as long as they could.

[Ragnarr]

I love the idea of building a maze out of concrete around your base, this came up in a comic (title withheld) and it struck me as brilliant, Zombies are dumb they would stagger around and get lost and eventually lose interest. You could walk a gangplank above to kill them at range when the maze was full. This would keep pressure off of important walls and distribute the load within the maze so no one wall was taking a constant pounding. It would also enable you to be able to get in and out through another mean while keeping them corralled in the maze.

There are kinks in the system I am sure that would need to be worked out but from a theoretical standpoint I like it a great deal.

I don't know. Seems like an overly complex plan for defending your base. I find that the more simplistic a plan is, the less there is that can go wrong with it. Any safe position that is above the zeds would allow defenders to thin their attackers numbers out. History is full of proven methods for defending fortified positions, and many of these strategies could be easily adapted for use during a zombie apocalypse.

[krakenslayer]

While its true that NOTLD and DOTLD do indeed establish this fact, I think that later works have actually for the most part gone away from this enough to make it not canon anymore. And for my two cents I think it makes more sense that they wouldnt be than that they would. I think of zombies as mindless eating machines not concerned for their own safety or pain at all. While they might walk around a fire if possible, if they are chasing prey I think they would walk right into a flame and ignore the fact that they were burning as they kept attacking as long as they could.

Exactly. Now this hits upon a point that illustrates just how pointless discussions such as this are: every film has different rules, yet no one ever sets out which film's zombies they have in mind when they begin a discussion. Therefore you easily end up with a dozen or so people all pulling in different directions with their own pet scenarios.

[Thorn]

this is the single best line in the whole article:


:lol:

i'd prefer quieter weapons in killing zombies over firearms. sure, i'd want to have guns handy but only as a last resort. noise seems to draw zombies like fresh elephant shit draws in dung beetles. another reason that i think people who want to keep dogs in a zombie outbreak are destined for nothing but death. also your average gunshot is about 160 decibels. that sound could travel as much as 10 km under the right conditions.

my close in weapon of choice would be an Easton bomb bat. it's not going to break nor wear out anytime soon. you can generate great speed with it meaning an impact on the skull is going to do major damage. it won't get stuck in wound and doesn't have to be reloaded. the problem that the vast majority of bladed weapons would have is that they would most likely become stuck in the zombie's head. not a good thing.

the major problem i'd have with swords is that the majority of the classic ones: the roman gladius, the greek xiphos, are designed as thrusting swords, to stab up and into an enemies' vital organs. not too useful against zombies.

-- -------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------


phalanxes are only good against targets directly in front of you. they have zero lateral mobility, cannot defend themselves from side or rear attacks and would only serve to push tasty human tartar together for zombies to feast on.

you seem to know a bit about the classical world. that's cool. i'm a classicist by education. nice to have someone else around besides evilned who knows what the hell a hoplon or a xiphos is and hasn't gotten their ancient history from watching "300."

300 was a fun read as a graphic novel, and it translated into an enjoybale movie experince, anyone who feels this in anyway resembles actual history is smoking somethign they shouldn't.

That said the battle at thermaploaye (which of course was not just 300, as there were plenty of slaves, and peopel from other free cities there as well) was one of the most interesting moments in history for me. Not because of fan boy love of sword and sandal epics but because the sacrifice men can make under horrible conditions to do what they feel they should do. And I am not even in love with Spartans, anyone who wages war on an enemy over and over agai nand refuses to change their tactics leading to their eventual defeat... I have a hard time supporting. Especially if one ofthe mai nreasons for waring wit hthem to begin with is because they are into higher learning, arts, and the like.

Now that all said I still think a phalanx could have use in specific situations and with modifications for the new foe, you have to adjust in the zombie world, as we all know even current military tactics could not remain unchanged, we would need to improvise, adapt, and over come. I would not dismiss out of hand a shield line/formation in specific areas and situations.

[Wyldwraith]

I think that so far as a sizable group engaged in an operation to say, clear a walled & gated subdivision of the undead tenants (assuming they have the manpower, nerve, necessary equipment etc.) could use a group-centric formation to systematically eliminate a FIXED number of zombies in an otherwise geographically secure area. Trying it in the open would lead to a tired team whose extended presence and consequent noise-making drawing more "new" zombies to them than those eliminated in the area where the group arrived.

You could do it a variety of ways. 1) (Not necessarily ease to come by) Animal Control-style catch-and-control sticks could be looped around both of the zombies upper arms and 1 more about the neck for safety's sake. With 3 strong men wielding the poles, it wouldn't be difficult for a 4th individual to inflict the necessary brain-trauma at their leisure. A simpler, though not quite as safe variation of the process would be 2 or more individuals pushing the zombie up against a convenient wall with any suitable poles (the telescoping lock-into-position pool screen poles, minus the screen attachment could easily do the job.
2) A pair of individuals could stretch a rope taut between them and run past the zombie on either side, in effect clothes-lining said zombie and setting up a third individual with an effective but maybe difficult-to-wield against an advancing mobile zombie for a decisive blow with say, a Sledgehammer or Mattock. 3) (Also not the easiest to procure or construct weapons proper for the task) The classic boar-slaying approach from the old days. 1 or more individuals with a spear or spear-like implement which has a reasonably substantial cross-piece affixed just behind the head of the spear, to prevent the impaled zombie from walking up the spear and attacking the spear-wielder. If an enraged Russian boar, which is about as sensitive to pain and injuries not resulting in a nervous system disconnect as a zombie (for several minutes at least), and which is double the weight of your average fit adult human male can be reliably brought down by such methods, so can a zombie. Probably even easier because you don't waste energy chasing it, don't need hunting dogs, and the zombie is 100x stupider, 10x slower and 1/2 the weight.

Of course you could always just go the "platoon of Daryls" route and have 4/5ths of the team primarily using Xbows, while the remaining 1/5th of the group watchdogged them with firearms at the ready in case something went wrong. The Xbow users would have guns as well, but the goal would be to minimize noise made and the expenditure of irreplaceable ammunition. (Still irritates me that Daryl has stopped even trying to recover his crossbow bolts this season. He went pretty much all the way through S1 with a steady number, but in only 4 episodes has expended all but one of them. Yes, SOME bolts would be rendered useless after striking the skull and being withdrawn from said skull, but if he could retrieve serviceable bolts all of least season, why are said rare bolts all but irretrievable this season?)

[AcesandEights]

I think that so far as a sizable group engaged in an operation to say, clear a walled & gated subdivision of the undead tenants (assuming they have the manpower, nerve, necessary equipment etc.) could use a group-centric formation to systematically eliminate a FIXED number of zombies in an otherwise geographically secure area.

This is pretty much how I feel about use of medium or heavier armor and riot control tactics...it just depends on the situation. I still wouldn't hump around chainmail in a post-apocalyptic zombie setting, but if I weren't on the road and had a force of people who may have to go in and clear out infected blockhouses or contaminated sections of a settlement, then...it just may be a case of the right tool for the right job.

[Ragnarr]

This is pretty much how I feel about use of medium or heavier armor and riot control tactics...it just depends on the situation. I still wouldn't hump around chainmail in a post-apocalyptic zombie setting, but if I weren't on the road and had a force of people who may have to go in and clear out infected blockhouses or contaminated sections of a settlement, then...it just may be a case of the right tool for the right job.

Now THERE'S an idea for a new zombie flick; a zed outbreak set in 12th century europe! The zeds surround the characters that are holding up in a motte & bailey. Lot's of room to explore medieval armor, weapons and seige tactics versus hordes of zombified villagers. Hell, I'd pay to see that flick twice! :)

"An evil necromancer raises hordes of undead as an act of revenge against his local feudal lord."

"Knight of the Living Dead"

"Sir Vivor"

"Lord of the Dead"

[Mike70]

I think that so far as a sizable group engaged in an operation to say, clear a walled & gated subdivision of the undead tenants (assuming they have the manpower, nerve, necessary equipment etc.) could use a group-centric formation to systematically eliminate a FIXED number of zombies in an otherwise geographically secure area.

wyld, you've just hit on something i've been thinking about for years. i live in a subdivision where all the roads end in cul-de-sacs. there are only two roads that lead in or out. i've often thought of what it would take to both seal the neighborhood off from the undesirables from the outside, but also to clear the area of the undead. the area around my subdivision is wooded, some of it quite heavily, and since the whole place is on top of a ridge, the terrain off-road is difficult. there is also a wooded park inside the neighborhood that could be converted to agricultural purposes. the other thing that might make this doable is that my subdivision is rather small, just a few streets - maybe a 75-100 houses at most, possibly less. there is easy access to water from multiple sources, etc.

anyway, this is a subject i've thought about for ages.

[Wyldwraith]

Mike70:
In varied but relatively isolated terrain such as that you're describing your home subdivision to be, I believe that a concerted effort by even a small group with strong nerves and effective cooperation could collectively eliminate a succession of even 200-300 zombies without firearms, and perhaps twice that with firearms (to break up groups of undead too large to confront manually by eliminating a portion of the herd from a distance). Given the sensory screen of broken terrain and wooded lots, it would be a far different story than say, Anna's neighborhood in Dawn '04 (which was flat as a pancake and utterly uniform).

The key, I believe, would be (perhaps counter-intuitively) a slow thoroughly repetitive removal routine that sacrifices greater efficiency or numbers neutralized in exchange for greater safety. This is where I think groups like the rednecks in hunting gear you see at the end of Night go wrong. Sooner or later each little knot of rednecks would chance upon a dense knot of ghouls at uncomfortably (dangerously so) close range due to an oddity in the terrain, and would get numerous people bitten because of their volume-of-fire-related overconfidence. Additionally, the large number of "hunters" spread all over an area would have the zombies scattering every which way due to these 3 over here sighting Hunters 1, 2 through 5, and these 7 zombies over there becoming aware of Hunters 6-10...

A removal plan that allows a % chance to Infection to exist is a removal plan that does double duty as a death sentence for significant numbers of people. Far better to utilize a plan thats 10x less efficient and 10x more time-consuming if its also a plan that is 10x less likely to get someone bitten.

An effective suburban elimination effort essentially comes down to stupefying levels of patience.

[Ragnarr]

@Mike70:

If you are not as well stocked on supplies as your nearest shopping mall (and my gut would think this likely), then I suggest that you'd survive at such a location much longer, with less physical defensive effort AND with greater comfort. Both Dawns had the original strategic concept right in my opinion, but the character's moronic decisions made it turn out badly.

A good alternative to a shopping mall would be any one of a number of supermarket warehouses. They are already designed with security in mind (fences, security doors, etc.), and contain a crap load of supplies for you and your group to live on until the end of the outbreak.

[babomb]

A good alternative to a shopping mall would be any one of a number of supermarket warehouses. They are already designed with security in mind (fences, security doors, etc.), and contain a crap load of supplies for you and your group to live on until the end of the outbreak. Wal-Mart distribution centers in small areas. The ones around here are huge, and heavily secured. Or public works buildings and old phone company switch buildings. Not too much on supplies but they're hardened from the public. Big heavy doors and most have no outside handles, no windows or tiny windows at the top, solid cement construction, roof access.

[Ragnarr]

Wal-Mart distribution centers in small areas. The ones around here are huge, and heavily secured. Or public works buildings and old phone company switch buildings. Not too much on supplies but they're hardened from the public. Big heavy doors and most have no outside handles, no windows or tiny windows at the top, solid cement construction, roof access.

Sounds like some good alternatives. The most important variable survivors will face is the duration of the zombie outbreak as this will affect the amount of supplies they will need. Securing your neighborhood might be good in the short term, but relying solely on hunting or limited raids for supplies is far more dangerous than simply sitting on a HUGE SUPPLY of goods in a relatively secure location.

The other important variable would be of a medical nature. Even the simplest cut could develope into an infection that would require antibiotics, not to mention those in your survivor group who may have an ongoing medical condition requiring perscription medicine (diabetes, heart conditions, etc.).

If we're talking long term survival or at least survival as long as possible, I'd much rather be kicking back with my feet up at my local mall or supermarket warehouse cleaning my gun and listening to Mozart than sneaking about the hordes of undead just to (hopefully) find some food, water or perhaps a pack of smokes.

[babomb]

If we're talking long term survival or at least survival as long as possible, I'd much rather be kicking back with my feet up at my local mall or supermarket warehouse cleaning my gun and listening to Mozart than sneaking about the hordes of undead just to (hopefully) find some food, water or perhaps a pack of smokes. That would be the ideal situation. I wouldn't be able to count on that being a possibility though. If you happen to already be in the mall or warehouse with a group of other people you have a good advantage and could possibly defend it well enough to hold it. If you're trying to get into a place like that you'd have to worry about there already being people in there ready to defend it from intruders(in this case you). You'd likely find yourself in a few smaller level safe houses before getting a prize like a mall or supermarket. Those will be coveted locations.

[Ragnarr]

That would be the ideal situation. I wouldn't be able to count on that being a possibility though. If you happen to already be in the mall or warehouse with a group of other people you have a good advantage and could possibly defend it well enough to hold it. If you're trying to get into a place like that you'd have to worry about there already being people in there ready to defend it from intruders(in this case you). You'd likely find yourself in a few smaller level safe houses before getting a prize like a mall or supermarket. Those will be coveted locations.

Oh crap, I think you're right babomb about other people heading for the same places. Well hopefully, if they arrived BEFORE I did, they'd see the wisdom of strength in numbers and let my lame buttocks in. If however I'm the first to arrive, I'd let them in I think. Hmm... now you have me thinking to sell my house and buy another one closer to the warehouse... like just across the street closer. ;)