1/56th M1A1 Abrams

[AKULA]

Perhaps....

Or perhaps Brooks is making the point that the modern military machine relies upon its high-tech equipment as a war winner, whereas the man inside is still vulnerable, in a way that the zombies wouldn't be.  Brooks was saying that the zombies lacked emotion, and that it was emotions of the soldiers (plus an airstrike using FAE) that ultimately contributed to the "defeat".

On the face of it Curryman is correct, no zombie is going to defeat a tank until the crew run out of ammo and fuel, or get stuck in someway, OR they get bombed by their own aircraft using FAE, OR panic due to the understandably overwhelming sight of 3 million dead people heading towards them, and some guy on the net shouting that they aren't going down when he shoots them in the head. 

Not having a pop at the US Military, in any way shape or form, just making a point that, as impressive as an Abrams is/would be, if the crew panicked, it wouldn't be of much help.

[Bako]

One thing that makes me wonder though is why the crew would panic so quickly. You'd think they had half a brain to realize they were safe so long as they were moving. Though I wouldn't blame anyone for bugging out when they got caught in a ditch with zeds swarming all over the chassis.

[Col.Stone]

Panic and logic do not go hand in hand

[wolfgangbrooks]

"if the crew panicked, it wouldn't be of much help."

But why would they? Slow moving easy targets that don't try to hide. The tankers and soldiers on the ground would be having a grand ol' time shooting everything down and never be in any real danger. And besides, with an FAE and a target miles long, they'd choose the site a little more carefully than on the top of their own guys.

I mean, I can accept that in an ambush zombies might pull it out. However in the set piece Brooks describes there is no way the zombies would win unless absolutely EVERYTHING went wrong. He just chose to make the buggers invincible for the duration of the fight. Something about explosions and machine guns not killing a zombie because it didn't matter if their internal organs got pulped. How about the rest of it that got pulped Maxy boy? They can't fight if they're scattered bits all over the ground or a bag of broken bones and holed muscles.

Not to mention if they have tanks versus infantry type targets, why would they have loaded the tanks with anti-armor rounds anyway? Like I said, he just waved his magic wand to make everyone stupid and the zombies invincible so he could have his apocalypse.

I just think people should just forget about a straight up zombie apocalypse happening except as high fantasy. (I know some people actually think it will happen in real life.) The only way it would ever happen is magic (big time vodoo, or a biblical style armageddon) or some other major major disaster happens at about the same time. Or just limit it severly in scope to some relatively isolated and easily written off areas.

[AKULA]

"if the crew panicked, it wouldn't be of much help."

But why would they?

Again, no offense, but i think you've missed the two main points that Brooks was trying to make - ie

1) that an overreliance upon technology can be a flaw, and
2) that emotions while a strength, in this war could also be a weakness, and that the soldiers had to become like their enemy (ie lose their emotion), in order to win.

If you want to read into this that he is making a wider point about US foreign policy/military doctrine, you can, or alternatively, just enjoy it as a zombie book! 

Another example of this, is his description of how the hi-tech landbattle system that they used to watch through other soldiers cameras meant that they could see a soldier being eaten by zombies - even if it was a couple of miles away, the tech brought the horror right into their field of vision.  When several soldiers panicked, their fear was communicated to the other soldiers almost like a computer virus "they don't die when you shoot them in the head"  "they are behind us"...

Obviously its down to personal opinion, and again, i'm not having a go in any way at the performance of soldiers from the US, or any other nation, but its impossible to train for the contingency of an army of undead shambling towards you.  Some soldiers would surely panic, and that panic would spread via the technology.

I agree that logic would suggest that if you just stand there, and pick your targets in a cool manner - ie DEVOID OF EMOTION, LIKE THE ZOMBIES (as the units managed later in the book), that the soldiers will win, as long as they don't get flanked, or run out of ammo.....but logic would also suggest that the dead don't come back to life. 

I just think people should just forget about a straight up zombie apocalypse happening except as high fantasy..... Or just limit it severly in scope to some relatively isolated and easily written off areas.

Each to their own...personally I'm planning on as big a zombie apocalypse as possible...

 

[wolfgangbrooks]

"1) that an overreliance upon technology can be a flaw, and
2) that emotions while a strength, in this war could also be a weakness, and that the soldiers had to become like their enemy (ie lose their emotion), in order to win"

Well, I think the 1st item is an overused trope in fiction. And if seeing their comrades get killed is such a sensitive problem, how are any wars fought at all?

As for the second point, I don't think it was becoming emotionless as much as being methodical and finding a doctrine that was tailored to the enemy. I imagine in the movie treatment, that part is going to be a big dramatic, "We're going to take it back!" style speech like in Independance Day or something.

Still I can't imagine a soldier from the current or next generation not hearing 'zombies' and not go, "Dude! Shoot for the head!" I think discipline would be more a problem with militias or poorly trained troops and getting cocky after the first couple of kills, like the guy who was being interviewed on TV in Dawn of the Dead. (at least the more recent version)

So perhaps the problem was Brooks choosing the big 'OMG, we're fuxxored' moment being from the view point of the US military was just a bad idea. If it had been in a country with a dictatorship (low loyalty to service, possibly even conscripts, or over prideful of their new expensive wonder bomb) or one with a small or severely underfunded military, then I could see it.

Refuges from a third world country accidently spreading the virus while trying to find shelter with an aid organization, and military units superstitiously refusing to fully engage an undead enemy could be a nice handful of scenarios. Or even a small first world military outpost cut off in the panic trying to get support from unreliable local units.

"Each to their own...personally I'm planning on as big a zombie apocalypse as possible... "

I've got no with that, just saying I think the way a zombie apocalypse is usually presented is kinda silly.

[Unforgiven]

Thats...so awesome. 

Thank you. Now I want a crapload of vehicles!