The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Question about world war Z
phalanx30    9/27/2006 2:41:41 AM
In the book "World War Z" at a battle called Yonkers between the U.S. military and a whole lot of Zombies, is the author correct when he says that massed fire from tanks, Artillery, helicopters, and planes on a packed crowd of zombies would have, at best, minimal effect and that the military would be defeated?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
BasinBictory       2/6/2009 8:18:57 AM
I just started reading this book. It is highly entertaining, but I think people here criticizing the author and his lack of knowledge of military weaponry maybe haven't read the book and the chapter describing the battle of Yonkers. (Or more precisely, one veteran's account of the Battle of Yonkers). The way it was described, the military in Yonkers set up and prepared they would if they were fighting a conventional enemy of human soldiers. The vet described digging fighting holes and sandbagging fighting positions, which he described as pure folly considering that zombies do not possess artillery or other explosive ordnance. He mentioned that he and the other infantry weren't truly organized to stop a massive wave of zombies, they were supposed to "pick off the lucky few that survived the heavy weapons." The vet basically said that the generals in charge had no real idea what stopped a zombie - they thought, and planned, and executed the battle they way their were taught at West Point. They way it was described, the military wasn't prepared for the sheer number of zombies, because the vet mentioned that the rate of fire started to peter out rather quickly, as the artillery began to run out of ammunition. They apparently didn't think there would be that many zombies, and there was something of a carnival atmosphere because of the huge number of reporters on scene. The vet was bitterly recalling that apparently the generals in charge were more preening and muscle-flexing for the cameras than thinking critically how to prepare their forces to fight  the undead. So, there was a sort of plausibility to the scenario. The vet described the battle as akin to Little Bighorn - the generals thought they knew what they were up against, but found themselves unprepared for the sheer numbers they had to face.
 
I also think the vet mentioned why the concussive effect of artillery rounds did not affect the zombies the way it would normal humans - something about the blood (and insides) of a zombie not being liquid anymore, but rather a sort of gel/goo that wasn't as affected by pressure changes the way blood and internal fluids in a human being get compressed (causing fatality) during a close detonation.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/6/2009 8:57:21 AM
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/6/2009 9:00:50 AM
BasinBictory

You're wrong. The forum ate my post but it's all been covered already.

The description is an unrealistic nerfing of the military in order to make a plot point
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       2/6/2009 12:52:13 PM
From how I read it I gathered that all of artillery, MLRS, helicopters, etc. did their job perfectly.  I dont remember exactly what he said but I do remember in the book reading a percentage between 80% and 95% were killed outright. 
 
What the problem was at Yonkers was ammo and the sheer numbers of zombies.  We all know here that given the appropriate amount of ammo just one MLRS unit and a rifle squad could probably kill all of the millions upon millions of zombies if they were coming from one chokepoint and you could reload fast enough.  Thats not what happened though.  What was described is that all of the heavy hitters ran out of ammo.  Then the infantry only had their standard issue weapons load and that was that. 
 
What the ultimate failure of the military leadership you were supposed to gather wasnt the tactical failures.  Sandbags and trenches would still offer protection from friendly fire as well as let you layer your guys and pack them in close.  It was the strategic thinking that failed, I.E. to win the battle you had to kill ALL the zombies.  You couldnt kill 5 or 10% really really really fast (like they did) and expect them to run away with broken moral (which they didnt).  You had to kill every, single, last, one.  The leadership did not prepare and was not prepared to do that. 
Thats what Brooks was trying to convey to the reader.
 
Quote    Reply

BasinBictory       2/13/2009 3:55:03 PM
Right - that's kind of what I meant to say. My point about the sandbagged positions being silly when fighting zombies was because the vet himself mentioned that if they wanted protection from zombies, what they should have done was simply put all the infantry on top of buildings where the zombies could not climb.
 
He also mentioned that zombies, being undead, do not react like humans when large numbers of them are destroyed. They're not like a force whose fighting spirit and morale could be broken such that they could be routed when you only kill about half of them. They behaved more like driver ants (as the Japanese in later chapters described them).
 
Actually I thought that the book mentioned that while the artillery, MLRS, etc. fired, they did indeed do exactly what they were designed to do and worked fine, but they were inadequate to the task of killing zombies, which required destruction of the brain. Even when their bodies were totally shredded and mostly burned up, a still-functioning brain would have the zombie still trying to attack.
 
As far as Brooks' knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding the military, I actually thought his knowledge is fairly decent. He makes mention of various firearms throughout the book and uses them in correct context (for instance, making fun of the rapper who had a AK-74 with a grenade launcher and claiming it was the same kind as used by Al Pacino in Scarface, when Brooks knows that Scarface used a M16A1 with M203 attachment. Also mentions that the Russian troops find a cache of old rifles, mostly AK-74s and "a few older "47s".
 
While you may not think that's all that important, I've read far too many "serious" military novels (fiction and non-fiction) which get weaponry all wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

U.N. Spacy       4/2/2009 12:48:49 AM
Hey,
 
first off, sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but I think you guys who are skeptical of Max Brook's military knowledge should go to this page:
 
link


It describes what went wrong, from equipment to tactics.
 
Second, I'm French. Please excuse any grammatical errors :]
 
Third, I'd just like to add into that page that no matter how good a military you have, no matter how much firepower, if you use it at the wrong time, in the wrong way, it will falter.
 
Quote    Reply

U.N. Spacy       4/2/2009 12:50:13 AM
Hmmmm...the link above didn't work.
 
Just Google "Battle of Yonkers"; click on the first link (or the one that links to the zombiepedia site).
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 10:40:08 PM
Yonkers is SO the name people in Concentration Camps would use for a fictional battle they made up to tell their friends about as if it was real.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 10:40:29 PM

Yonkers is SO the name people in Concentration Camps would use for a fictional battle they made up to tell their friends about as if it was real.


Only the good guys would win.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 10:58:22 PM

   i dont own WWZ but i do own the author's first zombie book "the Zombie survival guide".  there is a little too much military analysis going on here, this whole zombie idea just started after 9/11 when the author (mel brooks' son!) wrote the zombie survival guide as a joke (making fun of all of the "survival experts" who started pedaling their BS "run for the hills!" manuals to the fear stricken, sometimes sheep-like American public).

   the next book was just a logical progression from this, its not like the guy is trying to pass himself off as a psuedomilitary expert like we do (or at least i do!).  if the zombie horde cant take on a few tanks and choppers, the story will be pretty short and dull dont you think?



A Zombie war could work if it infected 99% of the world population by air before a proper response could be manned. Even then humanity would survive in pockets.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 11:00:03 PM

The Battle of Yonkers was basically the author's way of showing that using Iraq-style conventional tactics wouldn't work on zombie hordes.  The point he makes is that the troops panicked when zombies began getting up again after taking point blank SAW fire and even thermobaric bombs.  There was also the fact that the hordes just kept coming and were made up of people that the troops were intended to protect.  It's one thing to shoot somebody with an AK who's trying to kill you; it's different when your target looks like the girl next door--or if it is the girl next door.

 

Implausible? Yeah, maybe.  I didn't think his idea of a Jewish civil war in Israel was very accurate either.  Not to mention what two or three AC-130s would do to a zombie horde.  But like someone just said, it'd be a short book if the military just wiped out the hordes with no trouble.  Brooks was going for the Dawn of the Dead thing, not Shaun of the Dead (where the zombie outbreak was brought under control in less than 72 hours).

 

Still, I liked his battle sequences with the old Napoleonic-style firing lines and "orc blade" melee weapons, and his descriptions of how cities held out (Ford Field in Detroit was great). There were some parts in this book that gave me genuine goosebumps--like the part where the Sears Tower was literally filled with zombies, or the zombies moving around the ocean floor, or the guy who fights across America only to kill himself when he liberates his own house. Spooky.

The above munitions would work and when those people are slavering to chomp on ure brains it helps for motivation.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 11:00:31 PM
But yeah, like u say, it's a pretty good book. Shaun of the Dead is more realistic tho.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 11:11:14 PM




   i dont own WWZ but i do own the author's first zombie book "the Zombie survival guide".  there is a little too much military analysis going on here, this whole zombie idea just started after 9/11 when the author (mel brooks' son!) wrote the zombie survival guide as a joke (making fun of all of the "survival experts" who started pedaling their BS "run for the hills!" manuals to the fear stricken, sometimes sheep-like American public).



   the next book was just a logical progression from this, its not like the guy is trying to pass himself off as a psuedomilitary expert like we do (or at least i do!).  if the zombie horde cant take on a few tanks and choppers, the story will be pretty short and dull dont you think?



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. 


 



Larger truths? I dunno man, sounds like valueism to me and that's highly subjective. Seems the author is saying militaries way of doing things suck, fighting spirit is far more important and not in those with technical strengths and that is his larger truth. He's wrong.
 
But I love ure post. Great points.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 11:12:02 PM

Hey,

 

first off, sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but I think you guys who are skeptical of Max Brook's military knowledge should go to this page:

 

http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Yonkers
" target="_blank">link ">link





It describes what went wrong, from equipment to tactics.

 

Second, I'm French. Please excuse any grammatical errors :]

 

Third, I'd just like to add into that page that no matter how good a military you have, no matter how much firepower, if you use it at the wrong time, in the wrong way, it will falter.




Ice 9 - Red Mage
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 11:12:31 PM
On the assumption that your enemy doesn't have planar travel...
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy