this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
317 points (97.9% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6625 readers
665 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 weeks ago (27 children)

Conventional infantry tactics don't really work against zombies. For instance, suppressing fire; you can't suppress zombies, because they don't care if they get shot, and it only matters if they get shot in the head. You can't inflict any amount of damage that's going to force a retreat. Artillery and bombs are only going to effect them if they're in the direct blast zone; shrapnel still has to penetrate the brain.

Your best bets are likely going to be napalm and flame throwers. I'm not sure how many napalm bombs the US military has, but I'm pretty sure that they don't have tons of flamethrowers.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

Conventional infantry tactics from 1945 certainly don't work. We haven't fought like that in forever.

Modern infantry tactics would be "Sit inside my nice warm armoured vehicle while the gunner shreds everything with a 25mm autocannon." And I think that would work just fine against zombies.

Also any competent military shouldn't have the slightest difficulty getting headshots on a slow moving target that isn't trying to evade or use cover.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

You haven't shot with people that were in the military, have you? :P

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Out of curiosity, how do they shoot in your experience? I've never shot but have friends and family in the armed forces who've I've spoken about this to and I don't doubt the military could win against a horde assuming they're regular walking dead zombies and not left 4 dead ones. You don't have to have perfect aim when you can unload at height level into a crowd.

Also, tanks.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

I'm in the US military. The fact that qualifying on an M4 is 23 out of 40 tells you a lot. (Although my unit's average is closer to 30ish)

Additionally, a very little amount of the military is combat arms roughly 15%. The other 85% supports the warfighter. I'm part of the 85%

This is why the US military is so logistically and maintenance heavy because we all support the 15%.

However shrapnel will cause a lot of damage and hopefully take out the brain with enough luck. The brain could still be alive without a body to support it.

Also depends on what kind of zombies we're talking about. If it's a zombie that still relies on oxygenated blood, then conventional tactics will still apply. However if the zombie only needs non-degraded muscles to keep moving, then it'll take a while for tactics to change.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Most people in the military do a basic qualification that is pretty easy to pass (23/49 targets, at ranges from 25 to 300m); these aren't head shots, these are just on the target. Once you've done that, and graduated from basic, depending on your specialty, you may rarely touch a rifle. Lots of former military people think that they're good, just because they managed a single qualification, and that they know a lot about guns, but it's often just fudd-lore. Spec ops guys and Marines tend to be more proficient overall, because they spend more time practicing. (TBH, a lot of the spec ops are very mediocre as far as competitive shooting goes, but they have a lot of other skills that are relevant to the military, and tend to refuse to give up.) Cops are often even worse; their qualifications are at short distances, with very lenient time standards.

Bear in mind that the kill-to-bullet ratio in Afghanistan was about 1:300,000; most shooting in the modern military is suppressive, rather than directed at a specific target.

Compare that to someone that's a USPSA B class shooter, or someone that regularly shoots PCSL 2 gun matches; they will tend to outshoot a lot of retired military, because they tend to practice, and practice on a shot timer, a lot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

America: Overrun by zombies

Jerry Miculek's house: Absolutely clear, they've learned to avoid his property line.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)