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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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.