Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 100,102 (click to see context) from:
** I get the feeling that Brooks just didn't know they existed. His understanding of firearms in the book is already pretty underwhelming to begin with, so it wouldn't at all surprise me if he just had no idea that there were even semi-auto only versions of the M16.
And as for him knowing anything about the M16, very clearly no. His reasons why the M16 is supposedly so bad are either outright falsehoods or exaggerations of actual problems they had. It comes across as he talked to a Vietnam Vet who had a bad experience with their rifle and then based his entire understanding of the M16 on that, barely doing any other research.
And as for him knowing anything about the M16, very clearly no. His reasons why the M16 is supposedly so bad are either outright falsehoods or exaggerations of actual problems they had. It comes across as he talked to a Vietnam Vet who had a bad experience with their rifle and then based his entire understanding of the M16 on that, barely doing any other research.
to:
** I get the feeling that Brooks just didn't know they existed. His understanding of firearms in the book is already pretty underwhelming to begin with, so it wouldn't at all surprise me if he just had no idea that there were even semi-auto only versions of the M16.
M16. And as for him knowing anything about the M16, very clearly no. His reasons why the M16 is supposedly so bad are either outright falsehoods or exaggerations of actual problems they had. It comes across as he talked to a Vietnam Vet who had a bad experience with their rifle and then based his entire understanding of the M16 on that, barely doing any other research.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I get the feeling that Brooks just didn't know they existed. His understanding of firearms in the book is already pretty underwhelming to begin with, so it wouldn't at all surprise me if he just had no idea that there were even semi-auto only versions of the M16.
And as for him knowing anything about the M16, very clearly no. His reasons why the M16 is supposedly so bad are either outright falsehoods or exaggerations of actual problems they had. It comes across as he talked to a Vietnam Vet who had a bad experience with their rifle and then based his entire understanding of the M16 on that, barely doing any other research.
And as for him knowing anything about the M16, very clearly no. His reasons why the M16 is supposedly so bad are either outright falsehoods or exaggerations of actual problems they had. It comes across as he talked to a Vietnam Vet who had a bad experience with their rifle and then based his entire understanding of the M16 on that, barely doing any other research.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Typo
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
*** Dehydrated tissue wouldn't absorb force as well. One. 223 round starts ripping good-sized holes in the target.
to:
*** Dehydrated tissue wouldn't absorb force as well. One. One .223 round starts ripping good-sized holes in the target.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Also, plate armour way too many edges for a zombie to grab. They're unlikely to be able to actually pull the armour apart quickly and it'll probably do terrible things to their hands but the zombies won't care about the latter and it will hold you in place while other zombies pile on until some zombie gets lucky enough to tear a piece off.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Decent plan for a well trained duo with steady nerves but the book is specifically supposed to be advice for normal civilians.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** It's not a matter of them deliberately trying to ambush anyone. A crippled zombie under some cover (long grass, water, mud, pile of rubble etc) just lies there, unable to walk so not moving much at all, certainly not enough to make any significant noise, until some unlucky fellow treads on or near them then ''chomp.'' Whereas if they'd been shot in the head the problem of that particular zombie is resolved forever. Yes, dismembering a zombie and ''then'' killing them will work but that assumes you have the time to do so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 100 (click to see context) from:
* What the heck happens between the “first cases” and the “overrunning” of an outbreak? There’s almost no transition between a few zombies and entire hordes storming the streets, and Brooks even makes a bit of a point of this in the “Recorded Attacks,” with some outbreaks stating how one zombie bit two people, then skipping to the next day when the streets are overrun.
to:
* What the heck happens between the “first cases” and the “overrunning” of an outbreak? There’s almost no transition between a few zombies and entire hordes storming the streets, and Brooks even makes a bit of a point of this in the “Recorded Attacks,” with some outbreaks stating how one zombie bit two people, then skipping to the next day when the streets are overrun.overrun.
** This is the fundamental flaw of every ZombieApocalypse, especially those with slow moving Romero styled zombies. But you can make an argument that in a world where the layman doesn't know about the dead coming back to life and craving human flesh, it would take a while before people came to that fantastical conclusion. And so the situtation wasn't contained correctly; see the entire zombie genre for examples.
** This is the fundamental flaw of every ZombieApocalypse, especially those with slow moving Romero styled zombies. But you can make an argument that in a world where the layman doesn't know about the dead coming back to life and craving human flesh, it would take a while before people came to that fantastical conclusion. And so the situtation wasn't contained correctly; see the entire zombie genre for examples.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
explained why chain mail isn't so great against zombies
Added DiffLines:
**** Mail armour is actually adressed in the book. Brooks claims that it'll protect you from a zombie's teeth, but not the sheer crushing force of a human bite that would leave your arm/leg/ribs/etc broken if not shattered - in much the same way medieval maces also went right through chain mail via crushing forces. Also the fact that said wound could still break the skin [[{{Squick}} from the inside out]], and a zombie could drool infectious saliva into said wound through the mail.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 97 (click to see context) from:
* Out of all the various types of armor discussed, there wasn't any mention of an NBC suit, HazmatSuit, or anything similar. While a full military-surplus suit would likely be cumbersome without defending much against bites, a basic painter's coverall plus a plastic face shield would be reasonable protection against infected bodily fluids.
to:
* Out of all the various types of armor discussed, there wasn't any mention of an NBC suit, HazmatSuit, or anything similar. While a full military-surplus suit would likely be cumbersome without defending much against bites, a basic painter's coverall plus a plastic face shield would be reasonable protection against infected bodily fluids.fluids.
-----
* What the heck happens between the “first cases” and the “overrunning” of an outbreak? There’s almost no transition between a few zombies and entire hordes storming the streets, and Brooks even makes a bit of a point of this in the “Recorded Attacks,” with some outbreaks stating how one zombie bit two people, then skipping to the next day when the streets are overrun.
-----
* What the heck happens between the “first cases” and the “overrunning” of an outbreak? There’s almost no transition between a few zombies and entire hordes storming the streets, and Brooks even makes a bit of a point of this in the “Recorded Attacks,” with some outbreaks stating how one zombie bit two people, then skipping to the next day when the streets are overrun.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 47 (click to see context) from:
*** or.... buy some ammo and a gun, [[WeirdnessCensor and go about their business as usual.]] Worst case scenario and you have a panicked evacuation and the rest can do [[CrazyAwesome some recreational zombie-hunting after work]]. [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarII If Londoners can go about their business during the day and take shelter from German bombs at night]] then Suburban Joe can at least keep his shit together long enough for the calvary to arrive.
to:
*** or.... buy some ammo and a gun, [[WeirdnessCensor and go about their business as usual.]] Worst case scenario and you have a panicked evacuation and the rest can do [[CrazyAwesome [[RuleOfCool some recreational zombie-hunting after work]]. [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarII If Londoners can go about their business during the day and take shelter from German bombs at night]] then Suburban Joe can at least keep his shit together long enough for the calvary to arrive.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Going back to the original point, dismembering zombies should be effective if you follow it up by killing them. Even if zombies don't always groan, they should still make noise crawling over the ground, so there's no risk of not noticing them. In fact, the very idea of Brooks zombies being able to sneak up on people is absurd, as they lack the intelligence to move quietly, wait in ambush or otherwise act stealthily.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92 (click to see context) from:
*** Mail armor or even linen gambeson might be a more practical alternative, since they are more flexible, less noisy, can be donned without assistance, and wouldn’t necessarily provide any less protection against bites. It’s not as if the zombies are using spears and axes against you, so plate armor actually might be overkill.
to:
*** Mail armor or even linen gambeson might be a more practical alternative, since they are more flexible, less noisy, can be donned without assistance, and wouldn’t necessarily provide any less protection against bites.bites. Gambeson also doesn’t have the noise problem. It’s not as if the zombies are using spears and axes against you, so plate armor actually might be overkill.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 90 (click to see context) from:
*** Where it could work really well is if you were engaged in defensive patrolling of a limited area on behalf of a survivor group that controlled territory, or aggressively raiding a known zombie-infested building in order to clear and secure it. That goes double if your preferred weapon is mêlée range, such as an axe. You’re seeking out a fight, you know you’re going to be at close quarters with the zombies, and it really helps if the zombies can’t bite you. If you’ve got a home base nearby then you don’t have to march a long distance or carry all your food, camping supplies, etc. while you’re wearing the armor, and if you’re part of a group they can help you don and remove the armor, as well as clean and maintain it.
to:
*** Where it could work really well is if you were engaged in defensive patrolling of a limited area on behalf of a survivor group that controlled some territory, or aggressively raiding a known zombie-infested building in order to clear and secure it. That goes double if your preferred weapon is mêlée range, such as an axe. You’re seeking out a fight, you know you’re going to be at close quarters with the zombies, and it really helps if the zombies can’t bite you. If you’ve got a home base nearby then you don’t have to march a long distance or carry all your food, camping supplies, etc. while you’re wearing the armor, and if you’re part of a group they can help you don and remove the armor, as well as clean and maintain it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The usefulness of plate armor would really depend on your situation and strategy.
*** Where it could work really well is if you were engaged in defensive patrolling of a limited area on behalf of a survivor group that controlled territory, or aggressively raiding a known zombie-infested building in order to clear and secure it. That goes double if your preferred weapon is mêlée range, such as an axe. You’re seeking out a fight, you know you’re going to be at close quarters with the zombies, and it really helps if the zombies can’t bite you. If you’ve got a home base nearby then you don’t have to march a long distance or carry all your food, camping supplies, etc. while you’re wearing the armor, and if you’re part of a group they can help you don and remove the armor, as well as clean and maintain it.
*** If you’re a lone operator, on foot for a long journey, or trying your best not to attract zombies, then it’s probably a bad idea. Medieval knights could get away with wearing up to 60 pounds of armor because they were rich guys with servants and horses to help them carry all their baggage, so they didn’t have to bear any load besides the armor itself and whatever weapon they were holding. If you’re a lone wanderer then you won’t have the endurance needed to wear that much armor AND a load of gear and supplies. Historically accurate plate armor is also difficult or sometimes impossible to don without assistance, such as lacing the arm harness to the shoulders of the arming jacket, and buckling the cuirass closed at the side. Finally, even well-made plate armor is kind of noisy to move around in, so your sneaking ability is pretty much negated.
*** Mail armor or even linen gambeson might be a more practical alternative, since they are more flexible, less noisy, can be donned without assistance, and wouldn’t necessarily provide any less protection against bites. It’s not as if the zombies are using spears and axes against you, so plate armor actually might be overkill.
*** Where it could work really well is if you were engaged in defensive patrolling of a limited area on behalf of a survivor group that controlled territory, or aggressively raiding a known zombie-infested building in order to clear and secure it. That goes double if your preferred weapon is mêlée range, such as an axe. You’re seeking out a fight, you know you’re going to be at close quarters with the zombies, and it really helps if the zombies can’t bite you. If you’ve got a home base nearby then you don’t have to march a long distance or carry all your food, camping supplies, etc. while you’re wearing the armor, and if you’re part of a group they can help you don and remove the armor, as well as clean and maintain it.
*** If you’re a lone operator, on foot for a long journey, or trying your best not to attract zombies, then it’s probably a bad idea. Medieval knights could get away with wearing up to 60 pounds of armor because they were rich guys with servants and horses to help them carry all their baggage, so they didn’t have to bear any load besides the armor itself and whatever weapon they were holding. If you’re a lone wanderer then you won’t have the endurance needed to wear that much armor AND a load of gear and supplies. Historically accurate plate armor is also difficult or sometimes impossible to don without assistance, such as lacing the arm harness to the shoulders of the arming jacket, and buckling the cuirass closed at the side. Finally, even well-made plate armor is kind of noisy to move around in, so your sneaking ability is pretty much negated.
*** Mail armor or even linen gambeson might be a more practical alternative, since they are more flexible, less noisy, can be donned without assistance, and wouldn’t necessarily provide any less protection against bites. It’s not as if the zombies are using spears and axes against you, so plate armor actually might be overkill.
