Sign in or 
Location: Pyrotechnics
Discussion: Explosives vs zed.
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Medusa374 |
20. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 11:08 AM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 21 2012, 11:11 AM EDT
"are you kidding me? these mines were made to disrupt platoons.SovietPrince, you fail to realize that (conventional) zombies do not become incapacitated by a shredded leg or two... they just become stumps. The psychological effects of explosives fail when the enemy has no brain. I don't think an army of half-zombies gnawing at my legs would be very useful. I'd much rather have a whole bunch of half-raiders dead on the ground. Not that I'd be using explosives anyway... too much inherent risk with the whole zombie-meat-flying-everywhere-infecting-everyone-it-touches thing. Do you find this valuable? |
BigLoki |
21. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:04 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 21 2012, 12:07 PM EDT
Here's something to consider when it comes to anti-personnel mines and the like:Just because the majority aren't designed to kill large groups, doesn't mean that the technology isn't there. They are designed to maim, and instill fear for very specific reasons. If you maim 3-4 out of a group, they now need to slow down,and aide those that have been injured, possibly carrying them along, slowing them even further. They will now be careful, and likely fearful. This slows them further, and breaks morale. Nobody wants to get their legs blown off... it could likely cause undisciplined fighters to flee, or generally cause dissent within the group. this is done with relatively small shrapnel at a semi-high velocity. Very little concussive force (relatively), and a loud explosion. By comparison... ever see what happens to a small group that happens to set off an AT mine? It's over... pink goo. So if it IS zed... shock and awe, demoralization, and partial immobilization techniques won't work... rendering them ineffective for all but a warning. If it's raiders, then it will likely have the desired effect. IF one were to attempt to fortify a location with explosives..in the event of zombies. Then highly concussive explosions would be preferable. Not just AT mines... demo explosives could work also. A demo explosive usually uses a high concussion explosive, and a piece of angle (of several pieces, depending on the application), to shear through concrete, and metal supports. Now knowing that, how many bodies could it get through before it were to stop? Also the high concussion shock wave makes it possible for the change in pressure to render a body shredded also. Just a thought. Do you find this valuable? |
Frag-12 |
22. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:31 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 21 2012, 12:33 PM EDT
My fellow survivalist, Claymores kill and maim. And they will even kill zombies if the #3 shot goes through their noggins. There is no doubt (1) or more zombies will be killed in a Claymore mine set up. And to guarantee a more successful zombie kill rate, place them chest high. A civilian alternative, dynamite and ball bearings. Take cover with either\or deployed. It is a misconception that Claymores can not hurt you if you are on the opposite side of the 'Front Towards Enemy" side. This is untrue. While the back side does not supposedly explode as far as the front, it will still ruin your day if you are too close and exposed. It is like being directly behind a LAW or AT4 when it is fired. Now will the Claymore or IED version of the Claymore kill all of the zombies in the blast area? Maybe. Will it create crawlers? Likely depending on numbers and the zombie's relation to the blast. Will it slow them down? Heck yeah, all of them will be knocked off their feet!What you don't want is a Bouncing Betty or an anti-personal mine that only maims. The real trick to active Claymores, is their availability to the public. Do you find this valuable? |
SovietPrince |
23. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:39 PM EDT
"SovietPrince, you fail to realize that (conventional) zombies do not become incapacitated by a shredded leg or two... they just become stumps. The psychological effects of explosives fail when the enemy has no brain. I don't think an army of half-zombies gnawing at my legs would be very useful. I'd much rather have a whole bunch of half-raiders dead on the ground. Not that I'd be using explosives anyway... too much inherent risk with the whole zombie-meat-flying-everywhere-infecting-everyone-it-touches thing."when you need to stop a large horde(or delay it) landmines are more than acceptable. keep perimeter monitored, shoot loners with marksmen, and if you see a nice horde, you dont have to worry so much. its an option, plus its also anti human so.. dual purpose, i'd say. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
24. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:39 PM EDT
While that's true, I don't think I explained my thought properly. Nearly any land mine can be fatal, but more as a byproduct of it's purpose. An explosive device of the same size as a claymore could be MUCH more fatal, if that were its' intent. Mines are to disable, and maim... they can absolutely kill though. For instance... if a group of 12 shamblers were to come by a claymore... probably 4-5 would be shredded at chest high... maybe 3 on a bounding mine... a demo charge? 12 would be shredded.
Do you find this valuable?
|
AlphaOneFour |
25. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:40 PM EDT
"A demo explosive usually uses a high concussion explosive, and a piece of angle (of several pieces, depending on the application), to shear through concrete, and metal supports. Now knowing that, how many bodies could it get through before it were to stop? Also the high concussion shock wave makes it possible for the change in pressure to render a body shredded also. Just a thought."A body is soft where the intended targets of demolition explosives are generally hard, solid targets. It'd probably do a massive amount of damage, most likely kill someone, but maybe if you just use the explosive to drop the building on them you might be better off. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Medusa374 |
26. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:45 PM EDT
"So if it IS zed... shock and awe, demoralization, and partial immobilization techniques won't work... rendering them ineffective for all but a warning. If it's raiders, then it will likely have the desired effect. IF one were to attempt to fortify a location with explosives..in the event of zombies. Then highly concussive explosions would be preferable. Not just AT mines... demo explosives could work also."I cite Loki as a source! :3 (sorry, I could not resist. He's like the most credible source I has) Zombies can't be shocked, SovietPrince. Even by your lifestyle choices. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
27. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:47 PM EDT
Frag-12 seems to have a good bit of knowledge about explosives too. Not stuff from google. Just different schools of thought maybe. Thanks for the recognition though...hahaDo you find this valuable? |
|
Frag-12 |
28. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:48 PM EDT
"While that's true, I don't think I explained my thought properly. Nearly any land mine can be fatal, but more as a byproduct of it's purpose. An explosive device of the same size as a claymore could be MUCH more fatal, if that were its' intent. Mines are to disable, and maim... they can absolutely kill though. For instance... if a group of 12 shamblers were to come by a claymore... probably 4-5 would be shredded at chest high... maybe 3 on a bounding mine... a demo charge? 12 would be shredded."Agreed but 4-5 chest high for a Claymore?! I am going to say 4-5 and up to all 12 because the Claymore is going to hit them like a shotgun with (70) #3 buckshot. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Frag-12 |
29. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:49 PM EDT
"Frag-12 seems to have a good bit of knowledge about explosives too. Not stuff from google. Just different schools of thought maybe. Thanks for the recognition though...hahaThank you as well Loki. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
30. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 12:53 PM EDT
Yep, it will, I've seen them placed chest/head high. You get about 8 meters of lethal fragmentation. An additional 12 of possibly lethal fragmentation. Thing is, it's single stage, so if a body is in front of you, you're only subject to what penetrates, due to the low concussion of the claymore. Vs. a high concussion with the same fragmentation... the shock wave would shred and tear, making the fragmentation WAY more effective and lethal. A 60 degree arc... the more lethal it is, the less chance of being hit. Not saying they are useless, or non lethal... just saying "bang for the buck" there are better ways to go when you're targeting only bodies, and not minds.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Frag-12 |
31. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 1:06 PM EDT
On the average, I agree. It just depends on the proximity and the way the zombies are facing the Claymore. Besides, I think it is more likely for us to purchase or ascertain a demo charge and add shrapnel to it than purchase a Claymore. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
32. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 1:16 PM EDT
Should be, but probably not...hahaha. You can pick one up with some connections in Afghanistan, for around 80USD. For $100 they'll set you up with a remote det...hahaha
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Frag-12 |
33. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 1:25 PM EDT
"Should be, but probably not...hahaha. You can pick one up with some connections in Afghanistan, for around 80USD. For $100 they'll set you up with a remote det...hahaha"LOL...Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not have those connections at this time. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
SovietPrince |
34. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 1:58 PM EDT
"I cite Loki as a source! :3 (sorry, I could not resist. He's like the most credible source I has)i cite a flare in the eye socket of a zed. Do you find this valuable? |
sibic |
35. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 6:50 PM EDT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_fougasseA flame fougasse (sometimes contracted to fougasse and may be spelt foo gas[2]) is a type of mine which uses an explosive charge to project burning liquid onto a target.[3][4] The flame fougasse was developed by the Petroleum Warfare Department in Britain as an anti-tank weapon during the invasion crisis of 1940. During that period, about 50,000 flame fougasse barrels were deployed in some 7,000 batteries, mostly in southern England and a little later at 2,000 sites in Scotland.[5] Although never used in Britain, the design was later used in Greece.[5] Later in World War II, Germany and Russia developed flame throwing mines that worked on a slightly different principle. After World War II, flame fougasses similar to the original British design have been used in a number of conflicts including the Korean and Vietnam Wars where it was improvised from easily available parts.[6] The flame fougasse remains in army field manuals as a battlefield expedient to the present day.[6] Do you find this valuable? |
JasonRedfield |
36. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jun 21 2012, 6:59 PM EDT
A note on Claymores: my friend who just recently finished up Army Infantry training pointed out something on these fun little things. Despite what many people think, it is not entirely unidirectional with its blast. It has a kill radius of eighteen feet BEHIND the device, as well.
Do you find this valuable?
|
theenglandguy |
37. RE: Anti personell explosives
Jul 13 2012, 6:54 PM EDT
"What you don't want is a Bouncing Betty or an anti-personal mine that only maims."Don't Bouncing Betties fly to head-height? I don't have much explosives knowledge, but that's how it's depicted in Call of Duty... (not serious) Do you find this valuable? |
RevenantAgent |
38. RE: Explosives vs zed.
Jul 14 2012, 1:37 PM EDT
Explosives would be a great tool in slowing a mob of zeds. But in order to totally neutralize them, their brain must be destroyed or their bodies completely incinerated. Zeds can keep coming at you if their torsos are blown in half. Actually they'd be crawling.What you wnat is an explosive that burns so hot and so fast that it can incinerate the zeds in a very short time. I'm not much up on weapons of any kind, but maybe incindiary explosives? Some of those burn really hot. Hot enough to destroy flesh entirely. Thermobaric devices are almost perfect if you have an army of zeds coming at you. But realistically, the odds of possessing such a weapon is unlikely and it can be dangerous if not used properly. These can wipe out small towns. Explosives are a decent deterrent, but you want something that will totally destroy the zed's ability to be a threat. Do you find this valuable? |
chitoryu12 |
39. RE: Explosives vs zed.
Jul 15 2012, 5:22 AM EDT
We're all very against Deadliest Warrior, but they have indeed done landmine demonstrations (among other explosives). In spite of the inaccuracy in some of the tests and the historical flaws, the fact remains that they do grab human analogues and pressure patches and give a verifiable demonstration of what things do to people.Generally, their landmines are very consistent in a few matters: the guy who stepped on it will at a minimum lose half his leg, which isn't fatal to a conventional zombie but will eventually kill a rager and leave any human unable to fight and rapidly bleeding to death. However, it's rare for the mines to kill or even injure people standing directly next to the person. Shock patches (indicating the force of the pressure wave) are rarely tripped even for an injury, so anyone standing nearby will certainly be shocked and deafened, but if they aren't taken out quickly they'll be ready to fight soon. Claymores, on the other hand, live up to their reputation and provide several lethal shrapnel wounds to at least three targets in front of it. Do you find this valuable? |
