Who would make the best zombiekilling army?

[Concray]

Should this even be a debate? Head to toe in lightweight armor. Sheer numbers. Guns that don't need to be reloaded and accurate out to quite possibly infinite ranges. Plus they have a leader who can snap zombie necks with his mind! And if they feel lazy they can just blow up the infected planet!

their guns might be accurate, but they can't hit a human-sized target within fifty feet.
Much less the head.

"these blast points are too accurate to be sand people, only imperial stormtroopers are so precise"

but i digress, by the time the imperial army was at it's max 2/3 or stormtroopers were human recruits. only the 1/3 remainder held the trace or "fett" DNA (or other/later DNA donor). so i hold that an entire clone army of fett's is better than imperial human troops...and can be replenished "at will" by more cloning. yeah, ya have to go to the books for the full story not just the movies.






i'm such a dork....

That only means that those hollering, primitive, and possibly retarded things suck worse than soldiers who cannot hit a people running through an open hangar.
There are real soldiers on this site, and I'm sure that even the most inane of them could do that.

[Raktus]

Therefore

[Fried Gold]

Seroiusly? Your tactic of setting up a phalanx for zombies is ridiculous. Who cares if you've got spears and swords if you've got the zombie horde on you already. You also don't need heavy armor, the zombies' teeth are human teeth, something with close fitting leather would work. You need a warrior class that can reach out and accurately get in the brain, and perform well in close quarters as well, but on an individual basis as well as en masse. I think the Apaches got it, as long as they use the tomahawk for a head pounding or spinal disconnection and not throw it. I know many will disagree because in close quarters they used knives and not longer swords. I think their speed makes up for this size difference. Also, because their main tactic was sneaky ambush hit and run, they would already be trained to know when they needed to boogie, rest, and wait for more.

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

[thesupremeking]

Seroiusly? Your tactic of setting up a phalanx for zombies is ridiculous. Who cares if you've got spears and swords if you've got the zombie horde on you already. You also don't need heavy armor, the zombies' teeth are human teeth, something with close fitting leather would work. You need a warrior class that can reach out and accurately get in the brain, and perform well in close quarters as well, but on an individual basis as well as en masse. I think the Apaches got it, as long as they use the tomahawk for a head pounding or spinal disconnection and not throw it. I know many will disagree because in close quarters they used knives and not longer swords. I think their speed makes up for this size difference. Also, because their main tactic was sneaky ambush hit and run, they would already be trained to know when they needed to boogie, rest, and wait for more.

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

Can't think of anyone more fitting of your description than the Viking Berserkers

[Verissimus]

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

meh.

no enemy is a "conventional war opponent." Each and every opponent you could, would, or should fight will be different, one way or another, whether there is air in their lungs or not. You fight the opponent in front of you, not the opponent you fought last week. Anything different is opening the door to defeat.

Chaos alone is not a good strategy for any opponent.

Any apache worth his salt does not truly fight in complete and total chaos. On some level, the collective of apache warriors have made a plan to spread chaos through an opponent not acclimated to chaos. This may be conscious to the individual members of the collective, it may not be. The victory of an apache comes from the control he exerts on his opponent, not the act of chaos itself. This idea has order to it, and is thus not true chaos. All good strategies rely on this idea, of exerting your will on your opponent, and not allowing him to exert his will on you.



I agree with someone else's posting, that any large "formal collective army" throughout history can defeat zombies. (even including apache) I don't see it being ridiculously difficult to outwit zombies. Will the zombies get hits in? yes, on any foe. but that isn't good enough to win. If it were, there would never be a loser.

[Concray]

Seroiusly? Your tactic of setting up a phalanx for zombies is ridiculous. Who cares if you've got spears and swords if you've got the zombie horde on you already. You also don't need heavy armor, the zombies' teeth are human teeth, something with close fitting leather would work. You need a warrior class that can reach out and accurately get in the brain, and perform well in close quarters as well, but on an individual basis as well as en masse. I think the Apaches got it, as long as they use the tomahawk for a head pounding or spinal disconnection and not throw it. I know many will disagree because in close quarters they used knives and not longer swords. I think their speed makes up for this size difference. Also, because their main tactic was sneaky ambush hit and run, they would already be trained to know when they needed to boogie, rest, and wait for more.

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

Can't think of anyone more fitting of your description than the Viking Berserkers

Berserkers?
Seriously?
Almost naked guys, hooped up on shrooms, screaming their brains out and swinging wildly?
The only reason they were efficient at all was because people were terrified of them.
Zombies cannot feel fear.

[Fried Gold]

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

meh.

no enemy is a "conventional war opponent." Each and every opponent you could, would, or should fight will be different, one way or another, whether there is air in their lungs or not. You fight the opponent in front of you, not the opponent you fought last week. Anything different is opening the door to defeat.

Chaos alone is not a good strategy for any opponent.

Any apache worth his salt does not truly fight in complete and total chaos. On some level, the collective of apache warriors have made a plan to spread chaos through an opponent not acclimated to chaos. This may be conscious to the individual members of the collective, it may not be. The victory of an apache comes from the control he exerts on his opponent, not the act of chaos itself. This idea has order to it, and is thus not true chaos. All good strategies rely on this idea, of exerting your will on your opponent, and not allowing him to exert his will on you.



I agree with someone else's posting, that any large "formal collective army" throughout history can defeat zombies. (even including apache) I don't see it being ridiculously difficult to outwit zombies. Will the zombies get hits in? yes, on any foe. but that isn't good enough to win. If it were, there would never be a loser.

I agree. But the purpose of this thread was to pick the best, and I submitted my opinion that the Apache win because they were fast, diverse in ranges as individuals giving even the last Apache a better chance of survival, and able to function accurately through the chaos and unpredictability of the unorganized battle (read: not attack lines and volleys).

[Verissimus]

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

meh.

no enemy is a "conventional war opponent." Each and every opponent you could, would, or should fight will be different, one way or another, whether there is air in their lungs or not. You fight the opponent in front of you, not the opponent you fought last week. Anything different is opening the door to defeat.

Chaos alone is not a good strategy for any opponent.

Any apache worth his salt does not truly fight in complete and total chaos. On some level, the collective of apache warriors have made a plan to spread chaos through an opponent not acclimated to chaos. This may be conscious to the individual members of the collective, it may not be. The victory of an apache comes from the control he exerts on his opponent, not the act of chaos itself. This idea has order to it, and is thus not true chaos. All good strategies rely on this idea, of exerting your will on your opponent, and not allowing him to exert his will on you.



I agree with someone else's posting, that any large "formal collective army" throughout history can defeat zombies. (even including apache) I don't see it being ridiculously difficult to outwit zombies. Will the zombies get hits in? yes, on any foe. but that isn't good enough to win. If it were, there would never be a loser.

I agree. But the purpose of this thread was to pick the best, and I submitted my opinion that the Apache win because they were fast, diverse in ranges as individuals giving even the last Apache a better chance of survival, and able to function accurately through the chaos and unpredictability of the unorganized battle (read: not attack lines and volleys).

I don't see any particular army having any sort of advantage or disadvantage over any other. Asking "who is the best army to kill zombies?" is more or less the same as "Wat iz teh bestestest army EVAR? lolz roflpwnage!" Which, in reality, amounts to "Who is your favorite army?"

Apache are sweet. They represent what is often referred to as an "unconventional" style of warfare. Attack lines and volleys are it's polar opposite, "conventional" warefare. There is nothing wrong with either, and the most effective strategies use both.

[Concray]

Zombies are not conventional war opponents, so the warrior best acclimated to chaos wins.

meh.

no enemy is a "conventional war opponent." Each and every opponent you could, would, or should fight will be different, one way or another, whether there is air in their lungs or not. You fight the opponent in front of you, not the opponent you fought last week. Anything different is opening the door to defeat.

Chaos alone is not a good strategy for any opponent.

Any apache worth his salt does not truly fight in complete and total chaos. On some level, the collective of apache warriors have made a plan to spread chaos through an opponent not acclimated to chaos. This may be conscious to the individual members of the collective, it may not be. The victory of an apache comes from the control he exerts on his opponent, not the act of chaos itself. This idea has order to it, and is thus not true chaos. All good strategies rely on this idea, of exerting your will on your opponent, and not allowing him to exert his will on you.



I agree with someone else's posting, that any large "formal collective army" throughout history can defeat zombies. (even including apache) I don't see it being ridiculously difficult to outwit zombies. Will the zombies get hits in? yes, on any foe. but that isn't good enough to win. If it were, there would never be a loser.

I agree. But the purpose of this thread was to pick the best, and I submitted my opinion that the Apache win because they were fast, diverse in ranges as individuals giving even the last Apache a better chance of survival, and able to function accurately through the chaos and unpredictability of the unorganized battle (read: not attack lines and volleys).

I don't see any particular army having any sort of advantage or disadvantage over any other. Asking "who is the best army to kill zombies?" is more or less the same as "Wat iz teh bestestest army EVAR? lolz roflpwnage!" Which, in reality, amounts to "Who is your favorite army?"

Apache are sweet. They represent what is often referred to as an "unconventional" style of warfare. Attack lines and volleys are it's polar opposite, "conventional" warefare. There is nothing wrong with either, and the most effective strategies use both.

Damn, he saw right through me...

[Verissimus]

Damn, he saw right through me...

I'm just good like that!

[Raktus]

In all seriousness though, if the Romans were as efficent as they were depicted in the Zombie Survival Guide's historical reference then they are clearly the winners. Able to calmly and rationaly set up traps for massing zombies with minimal losses. The Roman army was well known for its engineers and having the manpower to build/dig/construct massive wartime structures in a hurry....

[Fried Gold]

I don't see any particular army having any sort of advantage or disadvantage over any other. Asking "who is the best army to kill zombies?" is more or less the same as "Wat iz teh bestestest army EVAR? lolz roflpwnage!" Which, in reality, amounts to "Who is your favorite army?"

+1?

[AgentBlack]

a platoon of sherman flamedragons.....

[Verissimus]

a platoon of sherman flamedragons.....

Scratch my back? lol

(It is an obscure reference to an unofficial column tactic used primarily in the pacific theater of WW2, as far as I can tell. If enemy foot soldiers were able to climb on top of a tank, that tank would call to the tank behind him to "Scratch my back." The rear tank would then pepper the tank ahaead of it with it's .30 cal machine guns, clearing the front tank of enemies. The tank's armor was sufficient to deflect the .30 cal bullets, so the crew of the front tank would be fine, save for some ears ringing...)

It is funny because this is sooooooo many times a bad idea with a flamethrower tank...

[Concray]

Edited. Reason: Fail.

[Concray]

Scratch my back? lol

(It is an obscure reference to an unofficial column tactic used primarily in the pacific theater of WW2, as far as I can tell. If enemy foot soldiers were able to climb on top of a tank, that tank would call to the tank behind him to "Scratch my back." The rear tank would then pepper the tank ahaead of it with it's .30 cal machine guns, clearing the front tank of enemies. The tank's armor was sufficient to deflect the .30 cal bullets, so the crew of the front tank would be fine, save for some ears ringing...)

It is funny because this is sooooooo many times a bad idea with a flamethrower tank...

mmm... barbecue...

[Trent]

I go with the Russian military of 1945.

[AgentBlack]

I go with the Russian military of 1945.

cause there's no better way to combat wave after wave of zombies...
than with wave after wave of communist peasants!!

[Trent]

While I agree that the 1945 Russians would not care one bit about casualties, the unarmed human wave attacks seen in the early part of the war had been replaced by heavily armed human wave attacks supported by tanks.
Plus, having leadership unconcerned with casualties might not necessarily be a strategic (although surely morally) bad thing.
For example, shelling an infected area to cinders or "sterilizing" the bitten would not be a major hangup for the rather harsh leadership of the time.
Plus, any enlisted Red Army soldiers still alive by that time would have to be either incredibly lucky or one BMF. Combine that with "General Winter"...

[AgentBlack]

....and, if you've ever played the "N" Zombie part of COD WAW video game you know that this takes care of business!

[Dead Zed]

These guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX-7uz_t ... re=related

[InsaneCardio]

Having read the thread, I'm kind of torn.

Part of me wants to say Knights, heavy cav. With sword only, no lance or shield. This depends on whether the horses discipline was good or if the zombies would auto-spook em regardless of training and experience. The speed of horses would be a great advantage though, not to mention working from a height. Light cav from a similar time period would be nice too, faster and less worry about heat and exhaustion, but less extremity protection. Light cav with swords though, not archer-cav. Headshots with a bow of the old fashioned types would be really tough even at short range and if the horse was stopped.

Part of me wants to say Roman because of their engineering ability. Digging, building, and fire would win the day.

A medieval army with good engineers, cav, and adapted armor on extremities only would be ideal methinks.

Maybe an army from a very mountainous region would be good. They would be likely to have great climbers I bet. Having an increased ability to use high ground in natural areas rather than just man made structures would be handy.

[Einher]

T-800 (or better) or go home.

[Aikibiker]

I would bet on the Samurai. Not because of the mythical power of the Katana, but because a large part of their sword training is to strike for the head. They would have the initial advantage of being able to be immediatly effective against the undead with no learning curve while they figure out how to kill them and fewer training scars to over come.

They also had pretty effective light armor, trained to fight from defensive positions and as horse archers similar to mongols as well as in regular battle field situations. And I doubt they would hesitate about putting down somone that had benn bitten once they learned the significance of zombie bites.