I enjoyed "the zombie survival guide."  I think people are almost speeking different languages here.  Maybe the author wanted to say that their is "no military solution" or that our military has fatal flaws in it's thinking.  People also have the bad habit of thinking that if you are good at one thing you must fail at another.  Like the idea that blind people have great hearing in reverse.  People like to believe in "game balance."  It is not true.  Being great at one thing tends to make you better at other things.  (Would you rather play chess against the Olympic marathon winner or a random human if you had to win.)  People see how unfairly good the US military is at technical war fair (ships plains )and believe that we must be bad at moral/athletic war fair (hactets and handgrandes).  Bad thinking but sadly common.  The Japanese were so in love with their fighting spirit advantage that they slow walked weapon development.  US forces had fighting spirit.

 

It may be a surprise to some here but most readers don't find tables of the burst radius of shells compelling reading.  I do.  You do.  Other people not so much.  They want to recognize a theme in the store and are happy to see misrepresentations of weapons effects as a nice tool for the writer use in service of larger truths. 

 

I was under the impression that crossing a river undetected was not a mechanism used in the book to explain a defeat of the military. The book, AFAICT, just makes a bunch of random arrse up based on a fundamental misunderstanding of modern military weapons or basic science.

I make it about ten miles.

Couple that with the idea that any halfway competant officer isn't going to hold his position when the artillery has fired so much that it has run out of ammunition. He'll be sorting a disengagement plan out by the time they get into support weapon range, if not earlier.

Outflanked underwater makes sense.

Artillery suddenly not being the premier killer of the battlefield is ridiculous, and the idea that a military force going in to one of their own cities with MLRS is "underprepared" is pretty bonkers.

There are so many different ways that Armed forces can issue brain wounds to Zombies that it is not plausable for them to advance threw a choke point! Think of the Chinese "Human Wave Attacks" in Korea! Even given the lack of fire power compaired to today's Army, the good guys slaughtered the Chinks by the MILLIONS!

Modern weapons are at least two if not three orders of magnatude more effective and danderious than the weapons of WW-II and Korea! If they just aim at the head of the front row of Zombies, 5.56 will go threw at least two skuls and 7.62 will go threw four to five! That makes enfilade very dangerious to massed Zombies who do not duck and tend to pack up at choke points. Then Tank and SP Guns firing HE ammo will have 100% effectivness at all points close to the detonation point! The blast kills those close by, by concussing the brain with the shock wave. This works on real people too! Then there are ICMs that generate many tens of thousands of leathal fragments from each round! ( 80-100K per round!) Each weapon is capable of killing hundreds if not thousands only counting brain wounds. Then as the range closes, the muzzel blast from Tank main guns and SP Howitzers will kill ALL with in a dozzen or so meters in front of the guns.

Finaly there are the indavidual soldiers them selves. Each caries at least 600 rounds and from ~10 feet away, it is hard to miss brain shots at a rate that the zombies can not out race. Then there is air power and all that it entails! A 500 pounder will kill every brain with in 80-100M even if no fragment hit them by concussing their brains! Fragments are possable dangerious to over 900M!

 

No, the author did not have a clue how powerfull modern weapons are!

 

 

swhitebull