Fun Stuff > CHATTER

plans for the inevitable undead uprising

<< < (59/184) > >>

KharBevNor:
If you actually knew anything relevant, then you would know the vikings fought in shield walls.

I mean, very nice dick-wagging and all, but all you've told me is that you know a lot more about other periods of history and that one of your sources for information on the dark ages is Warhammer. It also makes you look even dumber because you are simply wrong.

http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resources/articles/combat.htm

"The Shieldwall - Once battle was joined, each side would form a line of warriors, perhaps several deep, formed into the "shield wall". Each warrior overlaps his shield on both sides, presenting a wall which is strong enough to stop a rushing opponent from penetrating."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_wall

"The shield wall was commonly used during the 8th and 9th Century by Vikings, and by Anglo-Saxons from kingdoms such as Mercia, Wessex, and Northumbria."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/echoblue/Theshieldwall.htm

"A main part of the military tactics used by the Vikings, among others, was the use of Shield Walls to provide cover for advancing and defending troops. "

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/shield2.html

"On hearing Alfred's approach Guthrum ordered his men to form a shield wall."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

"The Vikings who were without armour locked their shields together to form a wall. The Saxons copied the tactic and rushed the Viking army."

It looks kinda like this:

Boro_Bandito:
Very Well done sir.  You've successfully knowledged me to death. I fully concede the point to you. I did say that I basically knew jack about the vikings and their tactics in particular. Those shields are still not protecting the heads and/or feet, a zombie fallen to the ground becomes an anklebiter and a press of creatures who can't feel pain makes it hard to swing swords or axes in melee combat than against other guys who are trying to stay that distance away from you. You're right, zombies aren't superhuman, and by themselves aren't much of a threat unless you're careless/totally unarmed. The point of zombies is the sheer mass of numbers that make them dangerous and I still say that you're shield wall would be far less effective than you think.

Edit: Also, going through the first article and reading on shield walls, they weren't meant to last the entire battle anyway,

"From behind this wall the warriors would absorb the initial charge, and then loosen slightly to fight individual battles and small melees."

"With men standing so close and in several ranks, movement was limited, and even highly trained warriors would find it difficult to manoeuver quickly on the battlefield. As a result, outflanking moves were common"

Now I know zombies aren't the speediest suckers, what with the shambling and all but given their tendency to operate in sheer numbers a small group of ten or twelve Viking warrior regalia-clad men would still find an incredibly hard time of it to hold the line and keep them from overwhelming the flanks. Ways to prevent this I guess are finding a bottleneck to force the zombies coming at you through, and in a good area you could hold for quite some time. But zombies never get tired, people do. I'm still doubting you'd be able to swing an axe with enough force to cause a killing blow to a zombie's head for even five hours straight, hell, even an hour of just non-stop death dealing.

From the Wikipedia article:
"The shield would likely have pressed against the body with the sheer force, requiring the second rank to do most of the fighting over the shoulder of the first rank with longer weapons aiming for the heads of the front ranks of the opponent."

With only ten or so warriors, that means reducing your front row to five men, since the sheer press of weight would almost certainly come to this.

"The shield wall proved superior to troops in no formation but generally had many disadvantages: it was unmanageable, and the troops were so tightly packed they had difficulty looking down, so the advancing shield wall would stumble on the corpses. The flanks of the shield wall were especially vulnerable so a smaller army would have to spread its troops thinner to prevent immediate outflanking. The shield wall did not work well in woodland areas "

More with the outflanking.

"The powerful weapons of the time, like big swords and axes, were too big to swing, so the more effective weapons were short swords maybe a foot long which could be stabbed under the opponent's shield into his groin or leg. This led a lot of professional warriors in Alfred the Great's army to carry two swords."

Foot and leg hits aren't going to do dick to a zombie.

sean:
Boro I think that problem can be solved if can manage to acquire riot shields. I mean, your feet would still be open, but it would provide far more protection than a round shield would, and I highly doubt zombies will be smart enough to realize that they can bite your feet. Zombies seem to want to bite the most accessible point, usually the neck. If you really are worried though, wouldn't really thick boots do the trick?

Also, sorry if I'm being a complete tard with this one, but wouldn't a shield wall be far more effective with spears/lances/the sort instead of swords and axes?

Nodaisho:
Well, the zombies that can't stand wouldn't be going for the neck, they would be going for whatever is closest, legs. If you could get a tower shield or something, that would be better. I still maintain that anyone whose primary plan of battle is to get in as close as they can to zombies is not thinking right, neither is someone who doesn't have a way to fight close-up if they have to.

A polearm wall would be effective, but I think the zombies would keep pulling themselves towards you if you didn't hit them in the head, unless you had something at the base of the blade that made that impossible, and it would be awkward to hit them in the head. I haven't ever used a spear, so I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be difficult to aim one one-handed.

SonofZ3:
so wait, zombies are slower and more stupid than human beings, so we beat them by reverting to axes and clubs and viking tactics? It would seem to me that most weapon advances are as a result of the human mind constantly being able to invent new and innovative ways to kill people with available technology. If zombies are less threatening than humans, shouldn't our modern weapons be even more effective against them?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page