Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 6:53:21 GMT
Thank you, Gundoggy. And I think you're right about training. If you have been trained in the use of a particular weapon, it counts for a lot in terms of your ability to employ it safely and efficiently.
|
|
|
Post by genocideseth on Aug 22, 2009 7:03:58 GMT
And that's not what this thread is about. Be it zombies, or people, or ornery badgers, your foes are nonconventional, and likely to come in groups. You will face them in nonconventional environments as well, such as darkened hallways, city streets, and the old wood shed out back. You are all out of bullets, and they will be within arm's reach of you in another couple of seconds. What do you pull out, Seth? Depends on the number. If zombies, it is best bet to get to high grounds and try eliminate ways for them to follow. They can handle pain, but they are no climbers. There is no sense trying to be a hero and slaying them all. Best bet is to get away and survive. If I cannot get to high grounds, run. A weapon, in my opinion, should only be used when you need to, rather than deliberately. Everytime it is used, it is potentially weakened. I like to think it's structural integrity should be "rationed". And strong weapons should be chosen, as if you are gonna go a long time without food, higher, more filling rations are better are they not. As for the thread, I thought it meant only zombies. Sorry about that, I should try reading a little bit less carelessly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 7:21:49 GMT
I think we also need to decide what kind of zombies we are going to be facing as well. I know we do this every once in a while on this forum (since I joined I think there have been about 50 threads related to zombies) but type of zombie is important as well. Thanks to the wonderfully diverse genre of zombie horror movies and games we have a vast repertoire of zombie types to choose from. Are they runners, climbers, jumpers, the kind of zombie creature that can climb walls? Do they have zombie dogs? Are they like those things in the church in RE 2 the movie? Are they zombies like in RE 5 the video game that can manipulate basic weapons like crossbows and dynamite, things without too many moving parts? Can said zombies operate a kalashnikov? (if they can we are all in trouble because those guns are extremely simple but also readily available in ridiculous numbers, there are something like 100 million of those guns in the world today). Climbing away from zombies is all well and good but what happens if they surround the area in which you are hiding? What level of outbreak are we talking about? Are we talking worldwide or is it localized? I think ultimately, that no one no matter how good they are can survive a zombie apocalypse because eventually lack of companionship and despair would kill us. With no one to continue the human race we would just fade out, so what would be the point of prolonging it? Also, no matter what we do we can't kill all the zombies on the planet except with a wide scale nuclear strike and then we are all dead anyway. What happens when it infects the animals? Birds, rats, creatures that most often go unseen but can spread the disease or virus without anyone even knowing? What happens if it infects spiders or snakes? I mean Australian spiders and snakes are already deadly but what happens when the food source is contaminated or they bite you? If it is like the RE virus then the snake is the perfect carrier especially if it is a taipan. It can get everywhere, its bite is fatal without proper medical attention. So it injects the venom and the disease, it kills you and then the disease reanimates you, the ultimate example of two birds with one stone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 7:21:55 GMT
Good work on the increased word-count, there, Taran. Welcome to the "Is it skill, or just verbosity?" club. I've managed to keep people wondering for years. The arguments in favor of the hammer and mace are compelling. The question thus becomes: if these are such superior weapon designs, then why are the elite warriors of history almost universally associated with swords? Here´s the thing...thats kind of a modern thing. MOST death in melee combat is done by the spear, followed by maces axes and hammers...with the sword the LEAST dangerous. And quite frankly, the flanged mace was so bloody effective that the pope banned the use of them from the Christian world at one point. And if my life depended on it, that is my melee weapon of choice. Even if the spear is a better weapon at staying alive, I´m just not very good with them...and they don´t do as well outside of regimental use. Now if I had an army at my disposal...then spears all the way. As for a sword...I like my albion crecy. Pretty versatile and I´m quite handy with it and I´m very familiar with how it moves. It´s the style of sword I prefer...but more importantly, it is a sword that I KNOW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 14:09:46 GMT
ideal Survival sword is this one:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 14:12:02 GMT
Once again, we're getting very hung up on zombies. The point of the question at hand is that YOU DON'T KNOW. You don't know what you'll face, and you're building a survival kit ahead of time. You only have room for one personal melee sidearm, something you can use to defend yourself against whatever the threat may happen to be, when gun defense is no longer available to you. You don't know where you'll be fighting, or whether or not you'll be able to run away or otherwise modify your tactical position. You want a weapon which will maximize your odds in any situation. It can spring out in a pinch, when you find yourself surprised by the enemy in an alley, but it can also go on offense, when you are engaging foes on your own terms. So... what is it? What do you hang on your belt in place of your pistol, or to supplement your pistol, once ammo is that scarce?
Seth, your points are well taken, but you still haven't given us your choice. No fair only critiquing other folks' ideas. So you can slip one backup weapon into your Bug Out Kit, alongside the survival knives and hatchet or ax which are already there. What'll it be?
Napalm, I see what you're saying, but I don't think we can draw a direct "therefore" between a weapon having the highest historical kill count and it being the most dangerous or best battlefield weapon. The weapons with the greatest historical kill count are invariably not (necessarily) the best but (necessarily) the cheapest, because these are the weapons that go to infantry, and infantry do most of the killing. Mil-spec is not the gold standard. (As a modern example, NATO forces are killing a lot of folk with .223 Remington cartridges right now, which is by no means the optimal choice, but it's what they've got, so it's what they use.) Rather than looking at what infantry are forced to use, I would rather look to the weapon chosen by those of high enough status that, while they still go into the thick of battle, they have every reason to expect to go home again at the end of the day. I.e., the people able to make their own destinies. These are the folks given the latitude to choose and carry the most efficient and effective weapons (as our special operators are today), and before the era of the gun, they have mostly chosen swords--and maces.
Phillip, thank you for your contribution. I don't know that it satisfies the requirements of a survival sword, but I'm sure it would satisfy something else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 14:19:57 GMT
Actually, since this thread has gone on to an absurd but wonderful eighth page, I'm going to go ahead and repost the original question, so that late comers will know what we're actually talking about: Scenario:It's the zombie apocalypse. Civilization has taken a vacation, the grand machine has ground to a halt. Corpses of dead cars rust alongside cracked asphalt, stripped of their wheels, windows, and all other useful flesh. Packs of starving, feral dogs stalk the city streets, hunting both the millions of cats that now dominate the silent cityscape and the hundreds of millions of rats and pigeons on which they feed. The local Wal-Mart is all looted out, its contents claimed mostly by one or another gang of highwaymen and villains, the surviving remnants of the urban gangs which once thrived parasitically on the blood of their host cities. It is a suddenly harsh world, returned to the rule of Nature and fit for a documentary on Discovery or History, both of which long ago ceased to broadcast. From here on out, the ones who flourish are the ones who can craft their own survival from the ground up. Too far fetched? Ok, you are an oil services industry executive, overseeing new developments in a small Eastern European nation. You are overnighting at the construction site, and it's as peaceful as can be in the mountains, cool and quiet. You wake up the next morning to a panic, though. Some time during the night, Russian forces overran a large portion of the country and declared it to be Russian territory, and you are now deep behind their front lines. The brunt of their forces passed around your remote location, focusing on urban centers and operational and strategic objectives, leaving the rest of the countryside suddenly cast into confusion and lawlessness. The region is now an agitated melting pot of tribal interests, local mafia elements, resistance fighters, and the less savory representatives of the Russian military, and you are fifty miles from the nearest friendly border. You can wait for someone to come to you, and hope it's the Russian army that gets to you first (the least evil only by a slim margin), or you can strike out, avoiding the major roads (where deadly highwaymen rove the lonely stretches between Russian checkpoints) and trusting your skills in the open countryside. You are a successful, wealthy finance attorney in New Orleans. A hurricane rolls through, and you have elected to ride it out, in order to secure your company's offices and documents. The financial futures of twenty thousand employees and investors depend on these documents remaining safe and these offices reopening at the earliest opportunity, and contrary to the popular media image of people in your position, you got where you are in life by doing whatever is necessary for your clients. So you send your own employees, your family, and the senior partners to safety in Baton Rouge, but despite their protests you stick it out. Then the levies collapse, and it becomes clear that no one can predict when the flood waters will recede and real civilization and the rule of law will return to the city. In any case, you are now in a full-on extended survival lifestyle situation. Tier 4 gear, on my personal survival kit list. Note that the last item on that list is a sword. A survival sword, if you will. What is a survival sword? Premise:Your survival sword is your personal weapon. It is not a survival knife. We have a survival knife (in Tier 1) to serve as survival knife. The survival sword will not be used as a wood splitter or a shovel or in any of those other horrible ways we use survival knives (as in this scenario). It is noted last because it is your last priority, a tool for solely for defending yourself, reactively or proactively, against living (or undead) enemies. Oh, well, sure, you say. In that case, my ideal survival sword is a 1911. Yes, yes, mine too. But this is the zombie apocalypse. You only have so many bullets, and you could be here for a long, long time. Hopefully you've made good choices. You have, rather than a .45 (or in addition to it) something like a carbine-length Ruger 10/22. You've also got your 12-gauge pump shotgun, such as the Winchester Model 12 or the Remington 870, with a variety of useful loads. Or maybe you don't. Maybe you don't have any of those, for whatever reason. Perhaps state and local authorities confiscated your guns for your safety, but they overlooked your "ornamental" sword. In any case, bullets are precious, and one never runs out of sword. So what are the qualities of the ideal survival sword? Requirements:Tough. Not a big, hacking beast, like a machete. You won't use it to chop through anything more than light undergrowth on a regular basis. The rugged work will be done by your survival knife. But this sword will live a hard life. One hopes it will not see combat, but it must be ready for the task. It must also be able to handle the occasional hard use and abuse, when an emergency demands that you cut, chop, or pierce through something in short order, with no time to properly employ your knife and baton technique. It may take an occasional chip, roll, or set, and that is acceptable as long as the blade does not crack or break and the damage can be hammered or sharpened out in the field. Sharp. It will be employed primarily against soft targets of flesh and bone. If the enemy is armored it will be with a thick coat of fur, or a thick layer of textile clothing. The worst case scenario is likely to be modern body armor with ceramic inserts, in which case the sword will need to be able to cut or pierce the kevlar between the hard plates. You will want a hilt that gives you the option of a two-handed cutting grip. Deadly. This is primarily a tool of combat, not utility. It must be able to kill efficiently and, where necessary, quietly. A strong slash is good for doing battle with a rugged and nimble foe, but a deft thrust is also valuable, to secure a quick and efficient kill with a minimum of fuss. A cut enemy may still have enough time to draw a bead on you and pull the trigger. A man run through the heart will die before he has fully understood that funny feeling in his chest. Long. Not terribly long, but long enough to extend your reach beyond that of a knife- or fang-wielding foe. You want enough reach with your weapon to give you the absolute advantage over a hooligan with a switch blade or a machete. You also want enough reach to put down a rabid or otherwise diseased animal or person with the least risk of personal exposure. Finally, if you do find yourself facing a gun-wielding opponent and without a gun of your own, he maintains tactical dominance by staying out of your arm's reach. In that most harrowing of situations, every additional inch afforded you by your sword is an asset. (If you win this fight, be sure to take the gun!) Beware though, for length must be balanced with nimbleness. Nimble. It is too much to hope for, in a lawless society, that you will face a single opponent in a regulated duel. Nor are you guaranteed a traditional open battlefield. In all likelihood you will be surrounded, backed into a corner, in tight quarters, and probably in the dark. Furthermore, your opponents will be fast, unpredictable, vicious, and numerous. (Examples include rabid or ravenous dogs, post-apocalyptic gang bangers, and speed zombies.) You will need to be able to address multiple opponents efficiently, with extremely rapid follow-up strikes, quick recovery from misses and unexpected fouling (such as bouncing your blade off an unseen obstacle in the dark), and a great deal of accuracy so as to thin the numbers of your enemies as quickly as possible, before fatigue and probabilities can overtake you. You will also need to be able to fight indoors. Light. This sword will be your sidearm and constant companion, whether you are trekking hours on end across vast wildlands or making the rounds in your local settlement as you attempt to rebuild some modicum of civilization. It must be a natural part of you and never burdensome, lest you be tempted to leave it behind, and lest you be so wearied from carrying it all day that you are unable to effectively employ it when an attack befalls you at sundown. Three pounds is an upper limit; four pounds is excessive. (Remember, it is the accumulation of excess weight that gets you. You must be proactive in shaving off a pound or even an ounce wherever possible.) Your thoughts?The question put to this forum, then, is what sword currently manufactured meets these requirements? Is it a short-bladed Katana, such as the Hanwei Practical Ninjato? Perhaps the Oniyuri from Cheness? (The versatility of this design intrigues me greatly. Is it robust enough to stand up to an extended cycle of abuse and repair in the field?) Or is it a heavier Western design, such as Cold Steel's mighty Gross Messer (This seems like it would be a wonderful wilderness sword, but for its prohibitive weight. Also, it lacks nimbleness and deep piercing ability.) or the Celtic Anthropomorphic from Generation 2 (another rugged sword, but again perhaps lacking the finesse necessary to adapt to a variety of tactical scenarios)? The sword toward which I am looking most intently at this time is the Oniyuri, which promises remarkable versatility. Its short blade suggests handling comparable to that of Hollywood ninja swords, quick and responsive. At the same time, it retains the overall geometry of the Katana, the value of which has been borne out over centuries as a fine balance of cutting and piercing ability in a light-weight weapon. Finally, the extensive hilt (or tsuka, as I believe you purists of the Japanese sword section call it) permits its user to change the relative balance and overall length of the sword on the fly, from a close-in turning weapon with a point of balance less than three inches from the hand to a longer, more brutal cutter with greater reach and a point of balance five or more inches from the user's grip. This seems, on the modern battlefield of lawlessness and unpredictability, an eminently capable and versatile killer. But hell. I don't know nothin' about swords. What are its down-sides? And what other swords in the modern marketplace can boast such a wide array of advantages?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 14:39:57 GMT
When I suggested the longsword, I was taking into account that this would be a situation without zombies. For humans, I believe that it should suffice just as well as an axe or mace. Carrying it around could cause problems due to length, and drawing it in an instant could as well, but if I was in an area that I thought might be dangerous I would probably have my sword in hand already, so that I would not get taken by surpise. If I couldn't have a longsword, or if I was worried about the length, I would probably want a shortsword. Axes, maces and hammers are good weapons, but it seems to me like in an urban environment (buildings with very close quarters) you would encounter grappling pretty often. How effective would an axe, mace, or hammer be if your opponent grabbed you and threw you on the ground? Also, how would you carry it? In an axe ring on your belt? I think that drawing any sword from a scabbard would be just as fast as pulling out and axe or mace from a belt ring. If I was fighting zombies though, an axe or mace would indeed be my weapon of choice most likely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 14:45:37 GMT
I think in the end a full longsword might indeed bit a touch impractical, as you say, Kenyon. The shortsword (and the very first response, the Bristol, as from Valiant Armoury) are eminently practical solutions. The fact is that you can't carry your weapon in hand all the time, any more than I can have my pistol in my hand every moment while I traipse through the woods or go to market--but I can have it in the next best place: positioned for a lightning quick draw. A sword with a blade under thirty inches is a light-weight weapon with a natural carry that allows extremely fast and efficient deployment relative to just about anything but a belt knife.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 15:06:11 GMT
The short sword would have the advantage of being easy to use in close quarters, like a narrow hallway, but you would be sacrificing the killing distance that would be yours if you had something with a longer blade. Ultimately, I don't really think that there is one certain weapon that would be the best in the situations you named, since every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 15:15:47 GMT
Again, I stand by the choice of a longer-handled but light war-hammer. The hammer head allows you to engage opponents of a non-undead type without the possibility of binding up your weapon in bone or getting it stuck in flesh. That, in turn, allows you to rapidly change the target you're engaging, because you don't have to worry about ever sticking your weapon into your target. With regards to versatility, the war-hammer can switch between smashing and piercing, especially important when possible facing opponents with either heavy clothing (such as a cold-weather situation) or body armor of some sort. Also, if it were zombies, the head is the only viable target, which may well be considered armored given the amount of bone around the vulnerable brain. Bone can be considered armor, which the war-hammer is specifically designed to overcome. Carrying a 2-2.5 lbs weapon is much easier than carrying a 3 lbs one, especially considering the overall length of a hammer to be under 30 inches, short weapons being better in urban environments. Used one or two handed, a War-hammer is far and away my choice. Humble, simple, and incredibly deadly.
Edit: in response to very close quarters combat, such as house clearing, choking up on the hammer and using primarily the spiked end would suffice. Maybe dual-wielding with a knife?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 15:40:48 GMT
What about two swords? A longer one and a short sword. Both need to be light to be carried with easy. But the longsword on the back and a shortsword on the belt would work out well I reckon. So you have the best from two worlds. A long blade with reach advantage over any short weapon (machete) for fighting multiple opponents on the streets and a shorter blade (gladius, bristol) for combat in close quarters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 15:46:53 GMT
Ancient: I would take the Swamp rat waki due to meeting all of your criteria and then some and a tactical throwing axe of my own design. If you were going to take the oniyuri, you have to deal with things like rust. You'd be better getting a custom sword made with oniyuri specs but instead of the traditional tsuka go with a tactical handle with micarta scales. The best of both worlds would be to get swamp rat to make you a tactical oniyuri style blade with the same strength as the waki. You could go for an even longer handle and a short blade, maybe a 20"/20" handle/blade. The extended handle gives you plenty of options, especially with jimmy bar style forks that could also be pointed in such a way that they will penetrate a skull. Because the blade is shortened it can be used effectively in narrow spaces and yet with the long handle have the necessary space for when you really need a good swing. You could even go a little bit more nuts and have the spike and axe head incorporated with a longer cutting blade, that way you have an axe, a sword, a spike and a crowbar all in one extremely versatile weapon. Because it is micarta it won't be damaged easily. The only issue is what steel is it made out of and how often you need to oil it.
Bryn makes an extremely good point about a warhammer although I wouldn't want a wooden shaft, too much change of it breaking, maybe a HDPE handle around an inner steel core. Choking up on the handle in close quarters and relying on the spike is a great idea, put a secondary spike on the end of the handle and you are in great shape. You could even design the handle out of aircraft grade aluminium and the hollow handle could hold a screw in utility knife that bolsters the overall strength of the shaft. Better to carry one versatile weapon than two.
This thread has given me all sorts of wonderful ideas for weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 16:29:02 GMT
Ultimately, I don't really think that there is one certain weapon that would be the best in the situations you named, since every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages. Quite exactly so, Kenyon, which is what makes all of this discussion necessary. Being unable to specialize is the great challenge here. You go forth with one or two weapons--probably one and a knife, in your daily routine, and in selecting that one, you struggle to foresee and account for the greatest number and variety of scenarios, in order of likelihood, knowing that you'll never cover everything. Do you pick a weapon that is highly efficient in the most likely scenario and highly unefficient in others? Or do you pick a weapon that is perhaps slightly inefficient in the most likely scenario but suffers no more or less in a range of other possible encounters. And remember, inefficient does not mean unusable. You are not automatically condemned to lose the fight. Inefficient simply means that you will have to use more skill and expend more energy to secure victory. What we're working on here is an optimization problem--and a somewhat abstract one, where there will be no clear-cut optimal solution. No obvious, single d/dx=0. In the end, the choice between the final contestants will come down to personal preference and, yes, even style. Your style represents your temperament, and your temperament represents your most likely approach to a fight (both in preparation before-hand and in how you engage the fight itself). Your weapon should match your style. Bryn makes an extremely good point about a warhammer although I wouldn't want a wooden shaft, too much change of it breaking, maybe a HDPE handle around an inner steel core. Choking up on the handle in close quarters and relying on the spike is a great idea, put a secondary spike on the end of the handle and you are in great shape. You could even design the handle out of aircraft grade aluminium and the hollow handle could hold a screw in utility knife that bolsters the overall strength of the shaft. Better to carry one versatile weapon than two. Bryn does make some excellent points, and so do you, Wraith. That's why I'm so pleased with the results of this thread and have continued to monitor and groom it. The warhammer/war-axe is getting better and better. The final specification I would add is that the handle and haft should both possess an elliptical cross-section. Since the hammer (like a sword and unlike a mace or club) depends heavily on proper directional alignment, you want a natural queue to your hand as to pointing the head or spike toward your target, no matter where you are gripping the weapon. Bouncing off of Cheness-Fan's comment and Wraith's sword specifications, I can see one possible optimization as follows: You already have a camp axe of some kind, probably a tactical tomahawk/hatchet. Use this in place of the hammer, giving it the spiked back (they usually have one anyway) and pommel-weapon of your choice. It will tend to split skulls rather than bash them, but if it does encounter armor, it has the potential to crush, at the expense of some edge abuse. Since this goes in your axe slot, your dedicated weapon slot is still open, and a customized ninjato (and I use that term without apology!) of some sort is still an option, perhaps according to Wraith's specifications. I like your line of thinking there, and I really do think the long-handled short sword has some definite potential in skilled hands.** The Rat Waki is a tremendously strong device, but I might trust this weapon to Angus Trim first, as he has experience making properly balanced and percussive weapons that, yet designed for modern tactical use (and have seen modern tactical use in the Middle East). Finally, your survival knife hangs in the knife slot, and you've now satisfied the Bug Out Kit and the huge bulk of foreseeable tactical needs. Which do you carry out from camp each day? Well, you always have your knife anyway. It's a Tier 1 item. Your camp axe is in Tier 3, so you will have it under any circumstances that allow for Tier 3 gear. Hunting trips, humps across enemy territory, or while on work sites (rebuilding the neighbor's barn). The sword is the last item in Tier 4, is slightly lighter and more specialized than the axe, and goes with you under conditions that allow for Tier 4 gear. In a permanent or indefinite survival lifestyle, it is your sidearm as you deal with your neighbors or venture into the village on your daily rounds. It carries unobtrusively, can spring into action faster than any other weapon but your knife, and can kill unarmored or softly-armored enemies with unmatched economy of effort and time if you have the temperament to become skilled in its use. Finally, if you are going into combat and you know it, well, hell, you carry one of each, plus whatever guns you have left. This feels like an epiphany to me. My condolences to the devout hammer fans, but the hatchet already has a place in a minimalist kit. If hammering is your style, then by all means, replace the sword with a hammer, and thus carry a hatchet and a hammer in your Bug Out Bag. Alternately... I wonder if you could make a hatchet with an exchangeable spike. That is, a very stout screw-on spike that can be removed and replaced with a very stout screw-on hammer head. Or, if not screw-on, then some other form of attachment that properly distributes the force of impact and vibration to the body of the weapon. **Oh, oh, oh! Speaking of customizable weapons: so you've got a long-handled short sword, right? Half and half might be a little extreme, but one-third/two-thirds or even a little more is good. Super tough. Sandwich-hilted, like the Rat or the A-Trim Tacticals. Side-benefit? In addition to the ease of maintenance gained by the removable handle slabs, you can also easily convert the weapon into a spear/pollarm using that long tang and relatively short blade. So, spear-lovers, a little love to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 17:02:57 GMT
okay so Ive never worked with a sheild but I am still confident that it could be usefull (the carrying of course being its weakness) and I think one key question regarding only the zombies is how to kill them ? because there are certain differences within zombies (as afore mentioned) because for one the Resident Evil Zombies are killed by crushing skulls or by severing the spinal columb, but this isnt the case with george romero zombies in which case you specifically need to put something through the head also if we're dealing with Resident Evil scenario there is a lot more to worry about Lickers(the things in the church RE2 movie) TYRANTS ! and Nemisis ? not to mention birds, dogs etc. In a resident evil scenario the sword quickly becomes less of a viable solution as many of these creatures you will want to stay as far a way as possible
someone mentioned a spear which I will agree is an excellent weapon however if this is specifically a zombie scenario the spear looses its glory and that is that in general the spear was used by everyone trained or otherwise and the reason it killed so many people in battle was because it was as simple as thrusting into their opponent just about anywhere and they bleed and die with zombies you have to stab them directly in the head every time which will be tough and a miss is going to leave you in an awkward position so I think one key point is if the spear is to be used it must be in combination with a Gladi so that if you spear is stuck or broken etc. you have a very good quick draw weapon to fall back on
In conclusion if its resident evil the only solution is being Chris Redfied and having arms the size of your head so that you can PUNCH BOULDERS INTO LAVA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 17:17:21 GMT
A shield is probably a pretty good idea for a zombie battle. Even a relatively light, thin shield can be used to block a zombie rush or pin it down while you hack off its bits. However, shields are rather impractical in a survival scenario and thus don't feature on the list. They take up too much space and weight for their very specialized purpose to be viable outside a dedicated melee battle uniform.
Fortunately or unfortunately, zombies are only one of many survival scenarios being addressed here. See the second post on this page for a recap of the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 17:22:52 GMT
Good work on the increased word-count, there, Taran. Welcome to the "Is it skill, or just verbosity?" club. I've managed to keep people wondering for years. I've actually been there for a long time. My posts on here and at other sites are the results of a conscious effort to reduce verbosity. "Brevity is the soul of wisdom," and all that. I don't really know WHY the sword has such a following. Despite what Napalm said, the sword has Always, since its invention, been a symbol. Of what, depends on the culture and the time. As a weapon, however, it has historically been second-best to a wide variety of things. In formation, nothing matches the spear. Out of formation, well, there are all sorts of options. My personal choice in a survival situation is the flanged mace, as I said. Structural integrity. Ease of construction. Raw damage. Ease of use, even untrained. Useability even in enclosed spaces against numerous opponents. As for being in a grapple on the ground with a hand behind my opponent's head... ummm, having been in the grapple before, I have to ask "WHY?" Why is your hand behind his head? Take that free hand, draw your dagger/knife (or your opponent's) and stab him in the kidneys. Ummm, duh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 17:23:47 GMT
Im aware of the fact that zombies are only one of the scenarios but Im saying its one of the most complicated of the scenarios because in all other scenarios we are dealing with humans and humans are fairly easy to incapacitate (atleast compared to zombies) if we're going for the over all wasteland or w/e scenario (Im gunna say something a long the lines of fallout 3) society and what not has gone to crap than Im going to arm myself with a spear and a gladi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 17:33:56 GMT
Duly noted, Hairu. It's a solid combination and it does cover a lot of ground. I rather like it. Similarly, a spear backed up by a hatchet or mace might also be highly effective.
Taran, I do not agree that the sword is all symbol. I think it's effectiveness and versatility are well documented. Still, the forgiving nature and overall deadliness of the mace can not be denied. It demands consideration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 17:38:31 GMT
Napalm, I see what you're saying, but I don't think we can draw a direct "therefore" between a weapon having the highest historical kill count and it being the most dangerous or best battlefield weapon. The weapons with the greatest historical kill count are invariably not (necessarily) the best but (necessarily) the cheapest, because these are the weapons that go to infantry, and infantry do most of the killing. Mil-spec is not the gold standard. (As a modern example, NATO forces are killing a lot of folk with .223 Remington cartridges right now, which is by no means the optimal choice, but it's what they've got, so it's what they use.) Rather than looking at what infantry are forced to use, I would rather look to the weapon chosen by those of high enough status that, while they still go into the thick of battle, they have every reason to expect to go home again at the end of the day. I.e., the people able to make their own destinies. These are the folks given the latitude to choose and carry the most efficient and effective weapons (as our special operators are today), and before the era of the gun, they have mostly chosen swords--and maces. Well here´s the thing...rich and powerful people DON´T get into the thick of it usually...that´s what the infantry is for...and even still, the preferred weapon of the elite warriors wasn´t a sword anyways. It was the lance...before the lance it was the spear...both of which make for devastating mounted weapons. Some of the notable warrior of the 100 year war has exalted the great use of the flanged mace and these are people who certainly could choose other weapon (albeit as a secondary weapon after the lance usually). Oh speaking of which...if we can have mounts, I want a spear. As for the .223 analogy...well it IS the best weapon for what modern warfare demands. We no longer need to kill our enemies. We can incapacitate them without killing...which is optimal for war.
|
|