Armor in Zombie Outbreaks

[Svengoolie]

To Eyebiter: In the Dawn remake's "We Interrupt This Program", I seem to remember a bit where the Secretary of State or whatever says that even in this crisis America will uphold its committment to its allies...

[p2501]

i think this is maybe the 37th time this argument has come up. and sorry to say the real issue is time. If were going to jump the shark and say "OMG zombie R reel!" the effectiveness of a military response would depend on timing. if it were to happen right now, we'd be ****ed as most of our combat personal are in the middle east. So whatever fight there would be, would be short. If it were to happen, and IF we could have a rapid response from the military, then all of your OMG big gunz VS Zombies wet dream would come true. Anyways. In regards to armor deployments, A tank even unarmed would wither the undead numbers just by slowly running them over. Nothing beats 70 tons of armor squishing your ass at 10 MPH. As for the 120mm cannon, as far as I know an Abrahams can fire a Minus depression setting, so it can fire into the ground, given that, and the it’s capacity to deliver HE shells on target. Whoever said the tank would be useless is a ****ing moron. And should read a book, on modern armor as opposed to playing Xbox. The logistics angle for the tanks is the easiest of the proposed weapons. Diesel fuel is designed to be stored long term(with an additive Arcades was correct here), and it’s readily available in just about every rural gas station in the country. further I’ve venture 1 out of 4 urban gas station stocks it. So fueling a tanks without military support wouldn’t be too complicated. As for rearming it, there your options are of course somewhat limited. Also while the Abrahams would get bogged down in tight urban centers, honestly that’s the last place you’d want to employ it. Sweeping in an urban setting would be best suited for a twin armed humvee (MG 40 passenger side, with a .50 on top) backed up by Bradleys and close air support as a QRF. The Abrahams is simply to bulky for close quarters work, also it’s ordinance would create too much splash damage for anyone to operate around it. At best in an interior urban setting the tanks would best be used for patroling larger urban roads, and for providing perimeter security at temporary re-supply bases. Moving on…………. My favorite the AC-130 is next, but I’m going to lump all air support into one paragraph. In a short term high sortie response, airpower would of course own. Guided munitions aside, a simple a-10 would shred any target-able large groups it came across. The AC130 would be a different matter. I would more see that used not some much as a hunter-killer platform, but as it was suggested a close air support role. Given ground direction, to larger targets, it would be unstoppable. The problem with airpower would be again rearming and refueling. Not so much in terms of supplies, but in an area to do it. Given my proximity to Dover AFB, I feel somewhat safe in saying that, the facility could be locked down and maintained with a decent seized group of personnel. If those personal were backed up with armor support (I dunno the flight time from our armor storage bases in the Midwest, to Dover) it could be held either until it wasn’t needed or until other facilities were prepped. How long our supplies would hold our, is information I don not have. Addressing two other things. 1) civilian response is going to be of course faster than federal. Use FEMA as criteria when considering every possible Fed response time. As for first responders expect EMS and Fire to split before the police do. Hospitals will be unusable by day 2 of this entire thing going full tilt boogie. Seeing that your first responders are going to bug out and head home taking supplies in tow. 2) I expect the police to be entirely too busy dealing with riots and urban unrest to have direct time to mobilize into any sort of tactical response. This is where the military mobilization would then come into play. I think that about covers it. No wait Eyebiter. when last i checked we still store a decent supply of our armored equip both in bases in the middle states and the southwest. so there would be forces to deply out and about. also alot of NG armories atleast around me still have a Bradley or two in their motorpools. as for returning our troops. i can seen them dropping a ****load of supplies in the hustle, but i remember eating lunch ourside of Dover AFB during the build up to the first gulfwar. you cannot imagine how fast their air traffic personell can stack, pack and ship a loaded c-130. it quite honestly, one of the more impressive things i've ever seen.

[Tullaryx]

p2501 hit it right on the nose. I would also add a few things to what he's pointed out. I, myself, wouldn't even bring an M1A1/A2 MBT into an urban environment that would most likely be jammed with not just its decaying inhabitants, but wrecked vehicles, abandoned barricades, etc... The M1 would be best used, as p2501 mentioned earlier, for perimeter security. In fact, the M1 would do best as a mobile defensive hardpoint at bridges, thoroughfares, and highways that come in and out of urban areas. This would take advantage of the M1's weapon systems and its ability to move quick if it has to abandon a position. In the clogged streets of a major metropolitan, the M1 would still be able to use its size to bulldoze its way through, but it would take longer and if for some reason the vehicle breaksdown, puts its crew in the uneviable position of having to sit tight in the tank until a rescue team arrives, or leave and try to get out on foot. Either prospect would mean a high probability of death for the crew. Out in a city's perimeter an M1 would have more room to maneuver and if it breaks down, more open space for its crew to footslog their way to the nearest working vehicle. The type of armor that would work best in an urban environment would be the M2 Bradleys for the Army and the LAV-25's the USMC uses. They're heavy enough that tipping them over due to mass number of zombies would be improbable and they have enough traction to go over most wrecked vehicles and barricades. If they come across some that are impassable, they have enough firepower to blast an opening for them to move through. They also have the advantage of being able to carry a squad of infantry or room to stow any healthy survivors they come across. As for close-air support, an AC130 would be an ideal weapons platform if it means destroying as much of a horde as possible with acceptable losses to surrounding structures. AC130 would best be suited for targeting large moving hordes of undead out in the open. Really, any aircraft that has hardpoints to attach weapons to would do well providing CAS. But having them sortie nonstop wouldn't be prudent. Even large air bases like Dover would have a finite supply of fuel for its aircraft. Any future supplies of fuel would be hard to come by and would most likely come by a land convoy moving out of the secured confines of the base. In the end, the military would have a much easier time adapting and surviving to a good degree in a large worldwide outbreak. The one weakness fortified military installations like SAC Bases, Army and Marines bases would be instances when deaths within the perimeter goes unnoticed, especially in the first couple of weeks with the influx of refugees seeking safety. Then you have soldiers unable to reach family going AWOL to try and save them. But a military, especially the US military would react much faster. They would still incur massive losses, but not to the point that they lose operational integrity like civilian departments (police, firefighters, EMS, etc...).

[Arcades057]

Grab an MBT, sure; remember how useful they are in urban environments. Imagine your Abrams hitting a wall of dead flesh at ten MPH... Now imagine that tank slowing to a crawl and stopping, with you surrounded by those same zombies. A tank seems like a great thing to use, but that's the "XBox crowd" that thinks it. You are NEVER to operate something like an Abrams without infantry support in an urban environment. Period. There's a reason for that and it's not just the fact that idjits can drop Molotovs on you from above; your field of vision is limited. Any tank commander worth his salt operates his vehicle with an open cupola while sitting on the turret. Now you're making crazy noise with the engine and all the clunking of your tracks tearing up whatever isn't nailed down. You can't hear the three or four zombies that just crawled onto your tank. Now you're lunch. Tanks still sound like a good idea? If so, I suggest you study ANY military report written on the subject of armored vehicle use in urban environments. A more intelligent vehicle would be something along the lines of a Stryker or an LAV of some sort. These vehicles have a higher top speed, a smaller turret rotation radius, and they blow through less fuel than a mammoth like the M1A1.

[Wooley]

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...soldiertech.nl Who said tank guns were useless? A 120mm shotgun shell would put a lot of hurt on whatever was downrange. As far as the whole 'Military Kicking Zombie Ass' thing, let's look at history here-During the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake and fire, Mayor Eugene Smitz dithered with the decision to let the Army dynamite firebreaks in order to starve the fire. His dilema was one, he'd be blowing up homes and property of his rich buddies, two, he wasn't sure he had the authority to do so, and three, he was wondering if doing it would open the city up to being sued. While he pondered these questions, more and more of the city burned, until such time as he made the decision to go for it. The lession to take here is, by the time the full might of the military would be unleashed, it'd be too late to save much of anything. You really think our military can fight a war in a US city without killing a lot of non-combatants, and destroying a lot of homes, businesses, and critical civil infrastructure? Two, most of our military forces are overseas. At one point, 9 or the US Army's 10 active duty divisions were deployed overseas. 3 of the Marine Corps's 5 divisions were overseas. And 60% of the total National Guard forces were overseas as well. They weren't equally deployed either-some states had seen as much as 60% of their units called up. That doesn't leave much to combat the zombie uprising here at home. I doubt law enforcement would be up to the challenge. If they got the call to come home RFN, they'd leave a huge amount of their equipment behind, I'm sure. Assuming we would have the airlift/sealift assets to even get the troops home before we lose the airports/seaports. An armor unit isn't anything but ad hoc infantry without their tanks. The tanks aren't much use without their tanker trucks to refuel them, or their recovery and maintance vehicles to repair broken down equipment. Armies travel on their logistical trail, and modern armies have huge logistical trails. When the logistics break down, you have units going without food, water, fuel, spare parts, medical equipment, and ammo. Shortly after that, you lose the unit.

[Tullaryx]

Well, despite having a large number of military units overseas or in deployment, the US military still keeps a large enough garrison of troops to man the home front. Then there'll be the combat units recently rotated back to the States. I think in the end, the military as a unit tasked with keeping order in a situation like a zombie outbreak would be more adaptable and have the firepower and discipline to do so. And I think in such a situation collateral damage to civilian non-combatants is a forgone conclusion.

[p2501]

Tanks still sound like a good idea? If so, I suggest you study ANY military report written on the subject of armored vehicle use in urban environments. A more intelligent vehicle would be something along the lines of a Stryker or an LAV of some sort. These vehicles have a higher top speed, a smaller turret rotation radius, and they blow through less fuel than a mammoth like the M1A1. Why are zombies hurling Molotovs? In regards to tanks the end all be all arguement comes down to the Isrealies. they've been using ground armor in urban setting for decades, and simply put they're more adept at it then we are. so if they're doing it, than yes it came be done, and it can be done effectively. As for employing a tank without ground personell, i don't think i gave the impression i advocated that. nor would i, it would be assinine. However, i did/do know 2 tanks drivers, and i can say by proxy it's an disturbingly hard to **** up vehicle. while i wouldn't reccmonend a STRYKER for anything, it's still a plentiful vehicle. Altough the Humvee or Bradley would be a better choice.

[mista_mo]

Strykers are junk..they've been likened to 4 million doller coffins. I'd go with a LAV 3...hell they're old but they work, and are a helluva better vehicle. just my 2 cents..strykers are junk

[Tullaryx]

Strykers are junk..they've been likened to 4 million doller coffins. I'd go with a LAV 3...hell they're old but they work, and are a helluva better vehicle. just my 2 cents..strykers are junk In an environment against insurgents and the like, yes they're pretty useless since they're not armored enough, but against zomboids and the like --- unless they're like Philip Nutman's rpg-wielding zombies --- they should do well.

[mista_mo]

I think they have a higher probibility to roll over then most vehicles do as well. I stick by they are junk, and should be replaced by better vehicles statement

[Eyebiter]

On the topic - there is a great living dead short story in the fiction section called Tank by W.D. Robertson, 7-Nov-99. Highly recommended.

[p2501]

great find

[TexasZombie]

Howdy, zombie fans! Glad y'all liked "Tank". The idea, as one might suspect, is that protection comes at a price. "Dub" found the ultimate ride and hiding spot, but ultimately paid for it with his life by isolating himself from "Everyone Else" (even if they were zombies). If "Dub" had stuck to the cities he wouldn't have lasted nearly as long - too many things to hang up large armored vehicles, as many here have mentioned. Even in the open, however, armored vehicles are prone to problems - the one thing I didn't go into, but which would be the biggest issue, is maintenace. Even user friendly armor requires extensive and highly-specialized maintenance, training, and tools. If I ever get around to finishing the sequel to "Block Party", the various uses to which a Combat Engineering Vehicle can be put in urban and rural environments will be explored with Bob and Frank... Take care, Will (aka TexasZombie)

[p2501]

hah, cool. thanks for stopping by. now finish that damn story.

[Publius]

2) Aircraft. Guess what planes need to get up and come down? Fuel. Also aircraft need runways large enough to accomodate them. Something such as the Spectre AC-130 gunship would need a runway large enough to accomodate a 747--that rules out any smaller, private airports. This means you've gotta find either a military base or a major airport like LAX. Think you'd be alone in LA or NY or any other major city? 747s require over 6,000 feet of runway. The AC-130 can operate on under 3,000 feet in a pinch, and weighs less than a fourth as much fully loaded. There are over 4,000 paved runways in the US that are 3,000 feet or longer. Turboprop engines would probably be easier to find fuel for than jets, too, although fuel will still be a big problem.