Raiding: Basic strategy and tactics

[Faran Brigo]

We've talked often about the eventual need for raids to resupply. We will probably depend on whatever we can scavenge from the ruins until we get something better than a zero-sum economy going.

But although we always talk about raiding, I've never heard about specific strategy to do so, so here's my very unprofessional and likely wrong in some aspects theory on the subject. This assumes it's not just you, but a group of people (3 to 5 or so):

General guidelines: These can be summed up in the mnemonic P.I.R.A.T.E.

- Planning: Have a plan to go in. Try to plan strikes at daylight, zombies use all their senses equally and in the dark, they have an edge over you as they don't rely on their eyes as much as we do. Maximize safety, have some people dedicated exclusively to keep watch for threats, and the rest to find supplies and stash them in your means of carrying them back home; keep everyone armed and have everyone carry loot. Estimate the time it will take before too many zeds will gather around and make your escape too difficult.

- Information: Know exactly what you're going in for. What I mean by this is don't get sidetracked; Make a list of what you NEED and stick to it. Chances are you have limited carrying capacity, and while the crate of 12 gauge might be very useful, if your pressing need is pharmaceuticals, don't waste time on it if it's going to throw you off schedule and not the reason you're out today. When you have the time (when you're back home), jot down useful things that you've spotted during the raid so you know what is available where, when you need it.

- Recon: Try to identify entry and exit points from the outside, before you go in. Also try to get a headcount of the zeds loitering around, not just immediately outside but the ones within a few minutes range of the place you want to raid. When you DO go in, keep quiet and listen to any sounds that might alert you to people (or zombies) already inside the building.

- Armament: Carry the weapons for the job. If you're going into a small, cramped place bring the most compact weapons you can find. If on the other hand you're raiding a place with plenty of room and good vantage points, you might want to get something long with range. This applies both to firearms and melee weapons.

- Tools: You're not going to have a master key, so bring something along that can let you bypass locks, like crowbars, hatchets, heavy hammers, etc. If you don't have a vehicle (highly recommended) to load supplies on, needless to say you need to have a backpack, rucksack or duffel bag (the kind with a shoulder strap) to carry out your supplies. Avoid anything that requires you to hold it all the time, like regular plastic bags.

- Exit: Have several plans to bail out. Expect things to go badly, they often do in normal situations. If for some reason resistance is stiffer than expected or something is fishy, get out. There is usually more time to come back. Do not get involved in protracted combat, the zeds definitely will eventually outnumber and overwhelm you.

[Dave Of The Dead]

Nice. I like the idea of the guidelines. I would expect a lot of raids to be gun-ho death marches without proper panning and intel.

But would it really be easier in the day time? If the zeds use all of their senses equally at night, wouldn't they have slightly heightened senses at day (sight for the most part)?

[Faran Brigo]

Zombies use all their senses equally regardless of the time of the day. They do NOT get a boost to their abilities during day or night. They can see in daytime as much as we can and like us, they can't see in the dark.

At night we must change tactics (assuming you don't have NV gear). Outdoors we'll only be able to see faint outlines and indoors we won't be able to see at all without a flashlight. A flashlight in the dark is a zed beacon. Basically nighttime negates our advantage with ranged weapons and makes melee very hard since striking on the head is hard when you can't see the head well. Few of us have the skill to home in on a zed's head through their moans and decapitate or crush the skull.

Zed however does the same that he does at daylight. He will advance towards you with their arms forward and as soon as they get a hold of you they'll bite. The difference is they don't need any sort of precise aim, they just need to bite you anywhere on the body, and although they can't see you they know where you are because of the smell and sounds you make.

In short the difference here is that we depend on eyesight while they don't. We need eyes to aim for the head and to fight from long range, they don't fight long range and don't need to aim altogether since a "hit" from a zombie will kill you regardless of location.

[Faran Brigo]

This is a sample plan, proof-of-concept and inspiration only. The locations and layouts are real but they do not match, this is because it would be dificult and I think unethical to be faithful. If you are so inclined you can start to make your own plans as detailed and accurate as you want, this is merely a demonstration.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/7405/pointwpbji2.th.jpg (http://img78.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pointwpbji2.jpg)

Red spots mark the directions where Zeds might be expected to come from. As you can see, the main risk here is the wide road, which is bound to have some stumbling ghouls and probably stalled or crashed vehicles. To the west of that location there's burbland, which means "risky".

Blue spots represent good vantage points to survey the situation. If you have enough people and a way to get them up there, these spots have a commanding view of the town, the road and the hills to the east.

The greenline is the way you come in, and hopefully your primary exfil route. If all goes as expected, you should go back home the way you came in to minimize risks.

The yellow line is your secondary escape route. This goes through a net of forking unpaved roads which are relatively easy to get lost in, and therefore it's a good bet if you have to lose a human tail.

The black line (minus the spots where the adresses should be) represent a third way out. This road leads to a stadium if you follow it all the way (which is bad), but forks about a couple of blocks before that happens, north leads to the stadium, east leads to hilly undeveloped terrain.

More info below

[Faran Brigo]

The place is in Wyoming, which has the lowest population density of any U.S. state. Beware that this precise town in an actual emergency would be a bad place to visit, since it's on route to Yosemite, and pleople are bound to try to head there to try to live in the wild. It's a shame because other than that it'd be an excellent place, but ah well...

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8606/walmartlayout1sa8.th.gif (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=walmartlayout1sa8.gif)

Keep in mind, and I repeat, that this is not the actual layout of the store on the image above, it's just an example.

The plan here is to go in and out through the lube express, creep quietly to the section you need, take the stuff and high tail it same way. Stay the hell away from the front gates, and try to stay out of sight. This is easier said than done because unless you're exceptionally lucky, someone will have ransacked the place before you, which means there will be stuff on the floor, possibly slippery stuff, and the ocassional ghoul.

The same basic rules of indoors combat: Keep your eyes and ears open, stay close together, move carefully and slowly and in a way in which there are no blind spots (I.E. at least one person should cover every avenue of approach), leave a couple of people by your exit point to stand guard.

Use silenced or melee weapons to kill the ghouls if possible. If you have guns, always point them forward and be prepared to fire instantly (always engage your safety when not pointing them at something), keep them on your shoulder and don't fire from the hip. Have the safety off but keep your trigger finger a fair distance from it so you don't fire accidentally. Avoid fighting if at all possible, but pick off the stray ghouls that might give away your position or pose an unacceptable risk.

If you are forced to make a lot of noise, keep in mind lots of ghouls or even raiders now know there's a disturbance and will come to check it out, that means you should forego stealth and just hurry up. But don't get careless and run into a crowd of zeds. Resist the urge to run, running in a ransacked store means there's a good chance you'll slip or trip on something and at least slow down while you recover and at worse injure yourself.

Once you have all you need, and assuming everything went well, exit the building, take a quick peek at your exfil routes. Pick the safest one and high tail it.

[JakAttak]

This is a sample plan, proof-of-concept and inspiration only. The locations and layouts are real but they do not match, this is because it would be dificult and I think unethical to be faithful. If you are so inclined you can start to make your own plans as detailed and accurate as you want, this is merely a demonstration.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/7405/pointwpbji2.th.jpg (http://img78.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pointwpbji2.jpg)

Red spots mark the directions where Zeds might be expected to come from. As you can see, the main risk here is the wide road, which is bound to have some stumbling ghouls and probably stalled or crashed vehicles. To the west of that location there's burbland, which means "risky".

Blue spots represent good vantage points to survey the situation. If you have enough people and a way to get them up there, these spots have a commanding view of the town, the road and the hills to the east.

The greenline is the way you come in, and hopefully your primary exfil route. If all goes as expected, you should go back home the way you came in to minimize risks.

The yellow line is your secondary escape route. This goes through a net of forking unpaved roads which are relatively easy to get lost in, and therefore it's a good bet if you have to lose a human tail.

The black line (minus the spots where the adresses should be) represent a third way out. This road leads to a stadium if you follow it all the way (which is bad), but forks about a couple of blocks before that happens, north leads to the stadium, east leads to hilly undeveloped terrain.

More info below

damn you got this figured out but I would say put a few snipers in the blue and teams near the escape routes to keep them clear and quick recon near red to get a head count. Another thing that might pay off is a hot recon team to take out loitering Z's.

[Dave Of The Dead]

I don't know what your obsession is with sniping, but you really do have to realize that every team of zed survivalists will probably not have a skilled sniper. Trying to teach a member to snipe is just a waste of ammo compared to how well he could be doing from only 20 yards away. A plan like this would and should be for the average team, and not some elite squad of SWAT.

I think google earth/maps would be a wonderful thing to plan your scavenging or traveling routs. Good thinking.

[Faran Brigo]

Like I said before, it's inspiration and proof of concept. By all means make adjustments depending on your available resources and priorities. If you have sharpshooters in your team and the means to get them on the roof, do so, if you don't, fine. It goes without saying that satellite imagery will not be available once the outbreak starts. Start planning your routes and caches right now, save the info and print it when you have to.

As you said, it is a plan for novices. People with military/law enforcement experience will have their own ideas about how to carry this sort of thing out, probably better than what I've come up with thus far. Notice I did not mention the weapons, tools or any other equipment (other than stuff to carry supplies in). The reason for this is threefold:

1.- Equipment and weapons are already dealt with on plenty of other places to a depth I can't replicate (and shouldn't try to since this is not the subject), including threads here.

2.- It is impossible to say what it would take if you haven't actually been near the site. You might need wirecutters to get in, or maybe a sledgehammer to break a lock, or perhaps a crowbar would suffice, you won't know without recon on the specific site you want to raid. But most importantly...

3.- You work with the tools and talent you have. You might be fit enough to pull off climbing to the roof with a rope and hook (doubt it though), or maybe you have a light ladder that you can prop up. Maybe you don't even have motor vehicles so the plan's not contingent on that either. Maybe two or three of your team are sharpshooters, or maybe your team is only 5 people (in which case 2 should stay by the exit and 3 should do the actual scavenging).

[Hitman]

I've given quite a bit of thought to this. most of the raiding I have planned out involves a group of 4- 7 persons , either a van or suv ( a pickup could work or as an extra cargo hauler) , a good assortment of weapons , and plenty of forethought. I plan on sticking to mostly resedential houses for 2reasons. during the mass exodus to "safe" areas packing will be light if at all. those taken early will have not packed at all. also these areas need to be cleaned out of zeds to create a saftey buffer around your main safehouse . the closer you go at first the less time out in the open when zeds are still high in numbers. also most homes will open with a vigorous kick , so no need for alot of comotion. I also agree with the 2 sentrys at the entry/exit point . they will have longer ranged suppresed rifles to take both targets of opertunity to thin the overall zed #'s and to keep us from getting noticed. they will also have some serious firepower incase a large mob of zeds finds us. the entry team will have standard CQB firearms and more tools of the B&E trade , such as crowbars , hammers , cold chilsels , and possibly a diamond concrete saw (opens anything) . everything of use will be taken (if its not really usefull it can be discarded later) ,then when the house is emptied the door will be nailed/screwed shut to keep out wandering zombies and critters. it may be needed in the future .

[Faran Brigo]

I agree with the residential housing, but I think it might be a dangerous environment. Going house to house, historically it's always been a slow and bloody affair. Worst of all, I'm concerned that since we're talking about relatively small places it can be easy to become sorrounded. Then again, that's why you have sentries and a car. But I agree, I doubt individual houses would be extensively looted, most likely people will focus on superstores and the such.

I think the saw might be overkill, not many of us have houses built like fortresses. What kind of weapons are the sentries packing?

By the way, that gives me an idea: Perhaps it is best to arrange a supply cache (properly locked and discrete) where you take supplies before heading to your hq, that way you can reduce your risks and maximize efficiency. You go house to house then gather the loot (which will probably be more than you can carry on a single trip) and hide it in a few houses in special, safe spots. You take the things that are most urgent at the moment, and you can come back later if and when you need the rest.

[Hitman]

the saw will open any resedential safe . this could be more guns and ammo , valuables (society will rebuild and money will be used) , and safe rooms.

the sentries would have suppresed ruger 10/22's , and one would have my FAL as a backup , the other with my AK and a 75rd drum . plenty of spare mags for both the 22's and the bigger guns.I could swap out the FAl for my mini 14 with the 90rd drum but the fal beats it hands down in both range and accuracy. sidearms would be high capacity 9mm's . if things get rough the entry team wil be coming back out anyway with what they have as well. it would take a lot of zeds to make it through the hail of lead that could come from a 5 man team that was both well armed and well trained.its not like the vehicals would be more that a few feet away either.

[Augustus Desius]

I haven't read through all of this yet, as I've been short on attention today. So, if human v. human has already been discussed, ignore coming questions.

With a quick glance, it looks like this raid plan is based on acquisition of resources from a zombie controlled zone. But, what if you're attempting to raid a zone that is occupied by humans? Humans should always be entered into the equation. Even one can foil a good plan, by blowing your cover, attacking witout provocation, or attempting to kill you or yours for supplies.

For example, if you entered a city, you were unaware of human presence, and they open fire on you for leading an organized attack into their territory. Or, if two raids were to occur at once, and one side wouldn't make it a joint operation. There may only be enough for one group. How goes the assault then?

[Faran Brigo]

I think the chances of a five man team being overwhelmed depend mostly on the amount of zeds coming, and I figure out "too many" is a good rule of thumb, since I prefer to err on the side of caution. If you can funnel the zeds into a decent killzone, yes, I believe you can hold out indefinitely, but if you got zack coming all around you, even with five trained sets of eyes it will be very difficult to keep track of everything happening, and to keep downing them as fast as they can come.

This ultimately depends on the expected number of zack in the area. What you're saying sounds excellent for the little town on the pic above, but personally I'd be wary of trying that on infill, it might draw zeds all the way from the adyacent urban areas, and I don't think it's feasible to carry enough ammo to deal with that kind of numbers.

As for living humans, up there on the first post you might have noticed that I brushed the subject. Recon should reveal humans who don't attempt to (or ar no good at) concealing their presence. If not or if it just happens that you bump into a hostile raiding party, I'd say retreat. Standard infantry combat tactics apply here, lay down a base of fire and use bounding overwatch.

Humans are far more dangerous than zack, and fighting other humans in dead man's land means you're fighting two enemies at once. This is not a desirable situation.

Finding another supply source might take weeks or months. Finding another dependable and combat capable person to replace losses might take months or years or at worst be impossible, and a team is more than the sum of it's parts as fireteam members usually develop personal bonds that make them more effective than a disciplined group of strangers. Supplies are expendable, manpower is not.

[Darkness]

As for living humans, up there on the first post you might have noticed that I brushed the subject. Recon should reveal humans who don't attempt to (or ar no good at) concealing their presence. If not or if it just happens that you bump into a hostile raiding party, I'd say retreat. Standard infantry combat tactics apply here, lay down a base of fire and use bounding overwatch.

Humans are far more dangerous than zack, and fighting other humans in dead man's land means you're fighting two enemies at once. This is not a desirable situation. Supplies are expendable, manpower is not.

"Well put, Faran Brigo. Good reply." :clap:

[Augustus Desius]

I think the chances of a five man team being overwhelmed depend mostly on the amount of zeds coming, and I figure out "too many" is a good rule of thumb, since I prefer to err on the side of caution. If you can funnel the zeds into a decent killzone, yes, I believe you can hold out indefinitely, but if you got zack coming all around you, even with five trained sets of eyes it will be very difficult to keep track of everything happening, and to keep downing them as fast as they can come.

This ultimately depends on the expected number of zack in the area. What you're saying sounds excellent for the little town on the pic above, but personally I'd be wary of trying that on infill, it might draw zeds all the way from the adyacent urban areas, and I don't think it's feasible to carry enough ammo to deal with that kind of numbers.

As for living humans, up there on the first post you might have noticed that I brushed the subject. Recon should reveal humans who don't attempt to (or ar no good at) concealing their presence. If not or if it just happens that you bump into a hostile raiding party, I'd say retreat. Standard infantry combat tactics apply here, lay down a base of fire and use bounding overwatch.

Humans are far more dangerous than zack, and fighting other humans in dead man's land means you're fighting two enemies at once. This is not a desirable situation.

Finding another supply source might take weeks or months. Finding another dependable and combat capable person to replace losses might take months or years or at worst be impossible, and a team is more than the sum of it's parts as fireteam members usually develop personal bonds that make them more effective than a disciplined group of strangers. Supplies are expendable, manpower is not.

Ah, thanks mate, I'll try to read a bit more carefully next time around. Agreed on manpower vs supplies, Good posts and subject by the way :clap:.

How long have you been planning this out?

[Faran Brigo]

I've had thoughts about it since I watched dawn of the dead, but I hadn't thought about it in depth until about a week ago. I was reading one of the weapon threads and I noticed a trend: most are about "the best" weapon, which I thought depends on the situation as much as on the weapon, tactics and such.

Then it hit me, everyone's talking about the gear, but (that I know of) nobody's talking about what they actually intend to do with it. Gear alone will only get you so far. Don't get me wrong, I think it's very important to have good gear. I'm no expert, just read up on a lot of military stuff and despite what Brooks has said on his books, the book of war still applies in a zombie apocalypse.

Adequate tactics, strategy, and leadership will cover equipment deficiencies and maximize available strenghts (with reasonable limits of course), and going in without any sort of penwork will probably get you killed, even with superior numbers or wonderful high tech gear.

The real principle (I believe) from the "book of war" is this: Forces with superior doctrine, training, leadership and (yes) equipment will be able to accomplish their objectives with minimal losses, even when faced with a numerically superior force. Sun Tzu knew it, Heinz Guderian knew it. Beyond the techno-babble and "wonder weapons" that the media ate up, It was the REAL lesson of the 1991 gulf war, and it would be best to ignore Brooks and take that lesson home as well. In fact, this will be CRUCIAL in a zombie apocalypse since we will be severely outnumbered to the point where we can't afford to waste any potential edge we have over them.

[Augustus Desius]

Indeed, agreed in full. Though Max had some good ideas, his item focused text left much to be desired (but then again, it wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously. . . I hope. ).

The problem I see, is finding people who can fit the criterion for the operations. Hell, finding anyone with a disciplined morale is hard to find, let alone someone who has a tactically inclined mindset, and a firm understanding on where they fit into said strategy. Training towards combat effectiveness takes a long time and many folks simply aren't cut out for it. Would these recruits be found and tested as they come, or before Z-day?

That said, good leaders are a rare wonder unto themselves. They need to not only be able to plan well, but to change plans quickly and intelligently, readjusting while still using the strengths and understanding the weaknesses of their personel (SP?). Finding one seems almost impossible, and if you are one, finding soldiers will be a tough task.

Finally, I feel that field communication needs to be considered, because if shit hits the fan you need an effective way to call retreat. How do you think it should be addressed? Obviously radio was my first thought, but the issue of limited energy supply does bring up problems, as no more batteries will likely be in production. Colored smoke was my second thought, but if your units are indoors or facing the wrong way, they may miss the signal entirely.

[Faran Brigo]

I think simple walkie-talkies using widely available commercial batteries are enough for the job. You're not supposed to spread out thin anyway so the range isn't much of an issue, you certainly don't want to broadcast the position of your HQ. While batteries will run out, I think stocks will last quite a bit since I sincerely doubt people will stock up on batteries rather than other things (like food and medicines) and the little things are practically everpresent.

The human factor is important, but is a very extensive topic of its own and although relevant is not the focus of this thread. I think it needs its own thread.

[Augustus Desius]

Sounds good, I'll try to make a decent complemetry (sp again) thread about training standards and such later (if I remember). Sadly, I don't know what else to post here, as you have covered the basics pretty well, making the rest situational tactics. so I will be observing until I can get the idea. But first, sleep.

[JakAttak]

I don't know what your obsession is with sniping, but you really do have to realize that every team of zed survivalists will probably not have a skilled sniper. Trying to teach a member to snipe is just a waste of ammo compared to how well he could be doing from only 20 yards away. A plan like this would and should be for the average team, and not some elite squad of SWAT.

I think google earth/maps would be a wonderful thing to plan your scavenging or traveling routs. Good thinking.

sorry if I make these sound like a necessity just saying if it's within the abilities of your squad it could make a plan go smoother. As for my obsession with snipers, I would never think they could replace ground forces because sniper support is just that support and the troops knowing that someone's got their back could give a boost in morale. sorry if you took my statement the wrong way I agree training elite snipers is a waste of time but if they're already good why not put a little time and effort into making them great?

[Dave Of The Dead]

I gotcha Jak.

I have a group of 5 (including me) pretty much ready for an outbreak so far. As you have stated before, leadership is what holds together a group and their morale up. This is where my problem comes in. My brother in law is a member in our group and he is a big time Libra. You know, one of those people who thinks they have to show everyone how much of a dominate person they are in all situations? That's him. Me on the other hand keeps cool in situations and likes to think on the safe side. I know more tactical information while he is a better in the field. We struggle to outspeak each other all the time and I see major problems if the shit hits the fan.

Now here's my point. I know a group that holds together is key, but what do you do about the power mongers and people out to mutiny for leadership?

[john154]

Leadership of men in a stressful enviroment requires a strong, smart alpha male who can dominate those under him. Leading men requires someone who can inspire fear and respect in equal measures. Work it between the strongest, smartest men and set up a hierarchy with redundancy plans in case things go bad. Be prepared to deal with it together through your units strengths and loyalties if a stranger throws a wrench into your machine.

[Faran Brigo]

I agree that a strong leader that inspires respect is necesary, but I disagree about domination. Domination and fear means imposition, and that causes resentment and pent up hostility which regardless of how big and scary the leader is, eventually, when the opportunity to get rid of it arises, it will be taken by someone. Maybe the most ambitious, or maybe the guy who always gets the short end of the stick finally snaps.

I don't have military experience. But I have studied group behavior, and while people tend to congregate around the alpha male, if the only factors holding the group together are his traditional leadership qualities, as soon as he shows some sign of weakness or dimished capacity, someone will depose him.

The other problem is that fear and respect foster a yesman culture, which is a perfect way of ending up in a safehouse with the most fanatical of your group making plans to kill millions of zeds with a few guys armed with pocket knives.

In the current state, you can afford to be picky and try to get only people that can work with you that way, that are strong and smart and etc. You can look for the cream of the crop. Post holocaust you will have to work with what (in this case who) you find, and that means listening to everyone, talking, and not being a drill sargeant yelling and scaring everyone under you.

There's a difference between fear and respect. Respect is absolutely necesary, fear is counterproductive. Respect also goes two ways, and going "I don't care, I'm in charge and we're doing it my way!" is disrespectful. I'm not saying a leader should work through conscensus but he (or even she, I disagree with the "alpha male" mentality) should be able to detect and heal any rift that comes along between team members, not make it worse by imposing himself through fear and adding more tension to an already tense situation.

It was the struggle between wannabe alpha males (which is an inherent part of that system) that doomed the NOTLD 68 survivors.

[john154]

I've worked under a lot of different sorts of Sargents before and the ones who couldn't instill a healthy amount of fear in their troops get walked on or take easier jobs. In a group where any of 10 men has been a leader before it takes a little more then that to hold them together. Equal parts repect, intelligence and fear. That being said i've known a Sgt who was too into dominating his troops and because of this he was constantly replacing members of his section who were quitting or challenging him. Even overseas members were leaving him. Yes leading by fear and intimidation alone will bring you back to the dark ages but its still a essential quality and tool in the pocket of a soldier.

[Faran Brigo]

Difference there is a sargeant has many resources that enable that type of leadership which simply will not be there for a post apocalyptic leader. There's no section 8, there's no replacements, there are no court martials or military establishment, and the worst thing an unruly recruit can do isn't nearly as bad as what a resentful rookie (or worse, a resentful group) WILL do to an unpopular leader.

[Dave Of The Dead]

Yeah, the thing about my brother in law is noticed by everyone, not just be me, the competing leader. He has treated everyone else like dirt and therefore, nobody respects him. Once we started butting heads with different views and perspectives, the rest of the group is leaning toward me as opposed to my tyrant brother. Through my eyes, it seems that my group tends to prefer the logical leader as opposed to the tough. If something does happen, he would likely run off on his own and leave the group behind rather than listening to someone else.

[Jimmy]

Awesome job with the layouts, plans, and stuff. Good ideas.

[bandits1]

I agree that a strong leader that inspires respect is necesary, but I disagree about domination. Domination and fear means imposition, and that causes resentment and pent up hostility which regardless of how big and scary the leader is, eventually, when the opportunity to get rid of it arises, it will be taken by someone. Maybe the most ambitious, or maybe the guy who always gets the short end of the stick finally snaps.

I don't have military experience. But I have studied group behavior, and while people tend to congregate around the alpha male, if the only factors holding the group together are his traditional leadership qualities, as soon as he shows some sign of weakness or dimished capacity, someone will depose him.

The other problem is that fear and respect foster a yesman culture, which is a perfect way of ending up in a safehouse with the most fanatical of your group making plans to kill millions of zeds with a few guys armed with pocket knives.

In the current state, you can afford to be picky and try to get only people that can work with you that way, that are strong and smart and etc. You can look for the cream of the crop. Post holocaust you will have to work with what (in this case who) you find, and that means listening to everyone, talking, and not being a drill sargeant yelling and scaring everyone under you.

There's a difference between fear and respect. Respect is absolutely necesary, fear is counterproductive. Respect also goes two ways, and going "I don't care, I'm in charge and we're doing it my way!" is disrespectful. I'm not saying a leader should work through conscensus but he (or even she, I disagree with the "alpha male" mentality) should be able to detect and heal any rift that comes along between team members, not make it worse by imposing himself through fear and adding more tension to an already tense situation.

It was the struggle between wannabe alpha males (which is an inherent part of that system) that doomed the NOTLD 68 survivors.
Difference there is a sargeant has many resources that enable that type of leadership which simply will not be there for a post apocalyptic leader. There's no section 8, there's no replacements, there are no court martials or military establishment, and the worst thing an unruly recruit can do isn't nearly as bad as what a resentful rookie (or worse, a resentful group) WILL do to an unpopular leader.
Great posts - and agreed with 100%. There is a huge difference between earning respect and leading by example, and intimidating people into listening to you by being big and/or loud and/or violent. The burly guy with most gun magazine subscriptions doesn't automatically get to be leader.

Like Faran Brigo pointed out: this ain't the military. Unlike the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines, people aren't in this situation by choice. You can't threaten a court martial or have a dishonorable discharge stapled to every job application of those who don't listen, so your leader better damn well be the smartest person in the room making all the right decisions. I'd much rather follow the smartest person than the loudest.

If you are lucky enough to be working with only hand-picked group members that have pledged their allegiance to you based on fear and intimidation...then congrats to you and your new cult. But most groups, I imagine, will consist of a mish-mash of stragglers and survivors. Most of them will need and desire leadership but will eventually turn on someone who doesn't deserve it.

[john154]

Most of us assume that when Z-Day comes we'd come out on top as leader. Maybe in a small group you might if you've got an advantage over others in some way. Those you pick up in the initial panic would be grateful, look up to you and maybe even be dependant on you for a time but how many could keep that admiration and make them want to follow you after they are out of the initial danger. You may not allways be the alpha male. Some of you might not even want to be. In this thread we've got an interesting discussion on leadership qualities. A lot of different combinations could and have worked but all combat leaders must at some point be dictators and even tyrants so that their team gets the job done. Or you can take off on your own and see how far you get without someone to watch your back. No smart man ever goes into a dangerous situation alone.

Be they friends or strangers would a democratic approach to survival allow decisions to be made quickly enough or would the decisive will of one person or an obvious majority improve odds of survival? Either method could doom or save you. In a fight or flight situation a quickly made educated guess is almost allways the best choice and deliberation/hesitation gets you knocked out. There's no second place finish in this game so its probably better to be resentful with hurt feelings but alive then eaten on a street because you don't like Conan yelling at you.

[bandits1]

Most of us assume that when Z-Day comes we'd come out on top as leader. Maybe in a small group you might if you've got an advantage over others in some way. Those you pick up in the initial panic would be grateful, look up to you and maybe even be dependant on you for a time but how many could keep that admiration and make them want to follow you after they are out of the initial danger. You may not allways be the alpha male. Some of you might not even want to be. In this thread we've got an interesting discussion on leadership qualities. A lot of different combinations could and have worked but all combat leaders must at some point be dictators and even tyrants so that their team gets the job done. Or you can take off on your own and see how far you get without someone to watch your back. No smart man ever goes into a dangerous situation alone.

Be they friends or strangers would a democratic approach to survival allow decisions to be made quickly enough or would the decisive will of one person or an obvious majority improve odds of survival? Either method could doom or save you. In a fight or flight situation a quickly made educated guess is almost allways the best choice and deliberation/hesitation gets you knocked out. There's no second place finish in this game so its probably better to be resentful with hurt feelings but alive then eaten on a street because you don't like Conan yelling at you.
The difference is these "combat leaders" you're talking about had soldiers who were obligated by military law to obey orders, regardless of how good of a leader they were. This generally won't be case in the post zombie-apocalypse world. People are going follow who they want to follow...and that may not always be the loudmouth who watched DOTD 1,000,000 times.

The only quality I would look for in a leader for my group of survivors is the ability to make the right calls at the right time. I wouldn't care less if he/she had an "alpha-male" personality or was charismatic. The ability to use practical and tactical smarts to make sound decisions under pressure is all that matters to me.

[Darkness]

"Adding the concept of leadership to the idea of how to plan a raid, is good. But let's stick to the topic of raids, and not go into armies of survivors. Thanks"

[Dave Of The Dead]

Say you are on a raid and the alpha-male wants to check out a liquor store. The rest of the group make a decision that they don't want to and they don't need to. The alpha-male basically tells you to listen to him because he is bigger than the rest of you (if only by a couple inches). He tries to intimidate you into following him and not the designated plan. This is exactly what would happen if you had this guy in your group. He has a lot of skills, but too many personal flaws, and doesn't care for the well being of the rest of the group. Would you rather follow this guy in your raiding party or the person who set up the original plan?

[Hitman]

I'd let him go in there if he wants the stuff . no need to put anyone else in danger for the "wants" of one. that would be the differances between wants and needs.

also going house to house would net a good bit of liquer , as most all of it would be left behind by people taking only "needed" items . I figure most of that would be clothes as they would expect the mill/gvt to take care of thier other needs . otherwise they wouldn't see the need to go have someone else take care of them. a little personal resonsability goes a long way. it does make it easier for us to get what we need and or want from the leftovers.

[Faran Brigo]

Now we're talking about BAD leadership, not just the style. A good strong leader would NOT raid for luxuries if needs are not covered. And bad leaders are bound to show up in any sort of group.

I'm saying however that the "alpha male" system itself turns good leaders bad. Authoritarism creates fractures in the unity of a group, discontent, which will be very dangerous without something to keep the group together, and fear isn't a good glue for that because although many people react to fear by avoiding its results, others will snap and react unpredictably.

Imagine being that kind of leader, solving an argument via imposition, "my way or the highway!", then going on a raid and the guy you just aggrivated "accidentally" shoots you in the head while fighting zeds. If you were a tyrant about it and did not have the support, or at least tacit approval of your team going into the raid, the man who might kill you has no reason to worry about group retribution after the deal's done. Certainly in a post holocaust world it will take a psychotic, sadistic personality to seriously scare people who have already learned to overcome a high level of fear (of zombies and marauders), that sound like someone you would follow?

Retaking what you were saying earlier, yes no smart man goes at it alone, but in a choice between following an authoritarian, psychotic leader who frightens me and going at it alone, I could go either way. If he's scarier than zack, I'm out of there, and if he's not, then I'm not really going to be afraid of him enough not to fight him.

It places too much power, and too heavy a burden on a single individual which will deteriorate, both mentally and physically due to the stress. It's a dangerous, divisive and unstable system that induces leaders to doom themselves and their group through the resulting hubris. This is the reason why most stable groups have either an implicit or explicit system of checks and balances (for example, democratic countries) or rely on higher ideals (for instance theocracies or the military) to hold the group together.

[Darkness]

"In my opinion good Raid Leaders need to be..."

"....Able To Organize, Mentally Balanced, Physically Fit, Non-Greedy, Good At Communication and Well Respected."

"Among other things, They need to have a constructive concept of priorities and return respect for those in their commend. They need to be able to put the good of the whole above their own personal needs. They need to be able to prepare their group, and communicate those plans clearly. They need to know how to listen to those around them, and no be so egotistical that they can't ponder the advice given them. They need to have the intelligence to know the difference between what is too dangerous, and what is worth the risk. And they need to know when to push on, and when to retreat, and get the heck out of the present situation. "

"I have only met one person, in my life, that I would follow with out question. When you have the right Raid Leader the people will follow them because they WANT to, and not because they are afraid to do otherwise."

[jagus12]

"When you have the right Raid Leader the people will follow them because they WANT to, and not because they are afraid to do otherwise."

You read my mind, only the ones that inspire respect and looks like they know what they're doing should be the leaders...

[JakAttak]

I personally disagree with a single leader when planning an assault then it should be a small group of people talking it over. when in the field you would want multiple squads so you have more flexibility when it comes to personal survival.

[Dave Of The Dead]

I personally disagree with a single leader when planning an assault then it should be a small group of people talking it over. when in the field you would want multiple squads so you have more flexibility when it comes to personal survival.

The problem I see with multiple squads is the communication between them. They all need to communicate within themselves and also with each other. This could cause confusion and panic. I could see doing that if you have two groups of 5 people, but if you spread your ranks too thin, someone might get lost and devoured.

[Faran Brigo]

I disagree with that as well. Too many cooks will ruin any stew. I think the leader should be elected, and he should have the support of the majority and try to reason with those who disagree, and although getting concensus and persuasion in a small group is generally easier, it's simply impossible to make quick decisions in a group manner, and it's very difficult to relay those to the rest of the teams, especially under duress. The leader must therefore take decisions by himself, but only in the field and only when it is impractical to decide as a group or the group cannot decide within a reasonable time limit (depending on the situation, could be 15 minutes, could be one).

Besides, filibustering is already annoying when it's done in a congress in peacetime, it can become a serious liability in a raid.

[john154]

These ideas are all so democratic and idealised. Darkness the fellow you described doesn't exist because no one is that pure. Have you ever seen or heard of a democracticly conducted fight or heard of the "nice guy" comin out on top? I know originally we were talking about 5 ppl and within that group maybe you could weigh everyone's opinions and grievances but if you get found out your likely toast due to your minimal firepower.

Therefore I believe it'd be better to level up so to speak to a larger group or one split into 2-3 parts that support each other. Democratic leadership won't work here because there must be one concept of operation that everyone undestands and can work with. You can't have 2 group deciding they want falafals and leave you guys unsupported on the left flank. I think that happened to William Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 or so. Anyway they left because their indivigual need was greater then their loyalty. Which brings us back to loyalty and the "alpha-male". I don't know how the discussion got to treating a dominant personality as a selfish, cruel bad guy because if he had been that why would you have joined him in the first place. Im sure he's a great guy. Like Robert Wallace eh. A upstanding fellow despite whatever flaws his follows will inevitably see in him.

[Faran Brigo]

I don't know how the discussion got to treating a dominant personality as a selfish, cruel bad guy

I think we have a disagreement over what "dominating" means, is all.

[bandits1]

I think we have a disagreement over what "dominating" means, is all.
I think it was also because john154 keeps uttering phrases like: "alpha-male", "dominant personality", "dominate those under him", "dictator" and "tyrant" as positive traits of an effective leader.

[Darkness]

These ideas are all so democratic and idealised. Darkness the fellow you described doesn't exist because no one is that pure. Have you ever seen or heard of a democracticly conducted fight or heard of the "nice guy" comin out on top? I know originally we were talking about 5 ppl and within that group maybe you could weigh everyone's opinions and grievances but if you get found out your likely toast due to your minimal firepower.


"Just because you have never met one, doesn't mean they don't exist."

[Dave Of The Dead]

I'll give you an example of what kind of dominating leader I am talking about, and you'll agree too that you will want to "accidentally" direct some "friendly fire" his way.

person 1: "I think we should take the less dirt road so we don't gett noticed as much."
Dominating Person: "No, we should take the more direct rout so we can get there faster."
person 2: "I agree with person 1, we should attract the least amount of attention as possible."
Dominating Person: "Shut the F*ck up and listen to me. We need to take the more direct rout, and that's what we're going to do. Get your sh*t ready, we're leaving."

There you go, don't you want to kill that guy right about now?

[JakAttak]

no because he is smart and will keep me alive longer.

[DemonChild]

WANT to? Hell, first time he did that I WOULD have capped his ass. There's no need for that in a life or death situation. Then again, you don't need Bob Ross draggin you around either. Somewhere in the middle...I guess.

[JakAttak]

ever heard of tough love.

[Faran Brigo]

Ever heard of Stalin? or Lemmings?

[bandits1]

I'll give you an example of what kind of dominating leader I am talking about, and you'll agree too that you will want to "accidentally" direct some "friendly fire" his way.

person 1: "I think we should take the less dirt road so we don't gett noticed as much."
Dominating Person: "No, we should take the more direct rout so we can get there faster."
person 2: "I agree with person 1, we should attract the least amount of attention as possible."
Dominating Person: "Shut the F*ck up and listen to me. We need to take the more direct rout, and that's what we're going to do. Get your sh*t ready, we're leaving."

There you go, don't you want to kill that guy right about now?
Exactly. The leader might not be the smartest member of the group, but he(or she) better be smart enough to know when to listen to the person who is.

I know that, under fire, not every situation affords the time to take a group vote...but if you(the leader) insist that you're making the right decision, but a dozen-or-so reasonably intelligent members of the group say you're making the wrong one...there's a good chance you're wrong.

[JakAttak]

really there's a limit on your power but you can't look weak.

[Faran Brigo]

A tell-tale sign of weakness is excessive bravado, and a sign of poor reasoning is leaning on authority alone every time a decision is questioned. If someone's confident in their own reasoning, certainly they can try to show why before imposing their decisions based on authority and intimidation.

I reiterate, no one's saying when under fire people should huddle and vote about what to do. But before raiding a location, I do believe most of the group should be convinced that it's a good location, a solid plan and there's a real need to risk their asses. As dangerous as it is going alone, it is equally or more risky to go along with a group whose leader runs Zap Brannigan-esque suicide missions.

[john154]

I think we have a disagreement over what "dominating" means, is all.

We do. When I say a leader should dominate his followers I'm refering more to all round being better then them. If you know more, are decisive, have a faster wit and are in better shape then another man its easy to dominate him and make him want to follow you without ever raising your hand against him. Even amoung peers this earns you respect. I know because i've lived in this evironment many times before. Charcterisitics as simple as a quick wit and a sharp tongue can get allow you to figurativly run circles around another.

I'm not promoting tryanny. I was however saying that you must be capable of such actions when necesary. "Speak softly, walk tall and carry a big stick" anybody?

[Faran Brigo]

Had a feeling you were talking about that kind of thing. I agree, it is a useful trait in a leader, but it doesn't rank in the traits I think would be essential in a leader. For me, it's the ability to keep a cool head, tactical know-how and people and organizational skills, the ability to listen, ethics and quick wits. Doesn't have to be superman or an idol.

[john154]

Totally agree. Glad we can come to an understanding on something:)

[bandits1]

We do. When I say a leader should dominate his followers I'm refering more to all round being better then them. If you know more, are decisive, have a faster wit and are in better shape then another man its easy to dominate him and make him want to follow you without ever raising your hand against him. Even amoung peers this earns you respect. I know because i've lived in this evironment many times before. Charcterisitics as simple as a quick wit and a sharp tongue can get allow you to figurativly run circles around another.

I'm not promoting tryanny. I was however saying that you must be capable of such actions when necesary. "Speak softly, walk tall and carry a big stick" anybody?
You use the word "dominate" entirely too much to make an effective leader. And just the mere mention of the possibility of raising your hand against someone in order to force them to listen to you loses instant and all respect.

You're not promoting tyranny, yet you say a leader must be capable of being a tyrant when necessary? Look up "tyrant" in the dictionary and tell me that's a trait you'd want in a leader.

Main Entry: ty·rant
Pronunciation: \ˈtī-rənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tyraunt, from Anglo-French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
Date: 14th century

1a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b: a usurper of sovereignty
2a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

[Faran Brigo]

I think by tyrant, he meant he should be strong and decisive, not necesarily that he should send people to gulags.

Funny thing about language, most of us see the connotations of what we want to express in a word, but don't see the other baggage the term carries. Like how "no tolerance" is positive but "intolerance" isn't.

Yep, that's what tyrant means, but I think what someone MEANT is more important than what he textually said (which is why sarcasm is so wonderful :P), although some clarity would be greatly appreciated.

[john154]

All i've known in my adult life is the infantry. I'm accustomed to my leaders having absolute power. When I lead my troops I maintain the same. It IS a hierarchal dictatorship and it functions nicely. However there are checks and balences in that everyone wants to be where they are and you only become a leader by proving yourself over and over again. Its a structure that works. In the event of a zombacalypse I'd emulate this system with the people I have at my disposal. I'd indoctrinate them as well as I can and I would make it work or I wouldn't leave shelter with people who I didn't think we adaptable enough to get with the program.

[Faran Brigo]

Um, if there are checks and balances it's not really a dictatorship. What you describe is more of a meritocracy.

[bandits1]

I think by tyrant, he meant he should be strong and decisive, not necesarily that he should send people to gulags.

Funny thing about language, most of us see the connotations of what we want to express in a word, but don't see the other baggage the term carries. Like how "no tolerance" is positive but "intolerance" isn't.

Yep, that's what tyrant means, but I think what someone MEANT is more important than what he textually said (which is why sarcasm is so wonderful :P), although some clarity would be greatly appreciated.
True - in the context of this forum - what someone means is more important than what they say, which is why I frequently ask for further clarificaton of many poster's statements. But I truly think that what john154 means when he uses the word "tyrant" is pretty close to the dictionary meaning. Based on his earlier posts, he seems to admire leaders who rule based largely on intimidation and fear.

We have to again remember that this is not the military. People aren't going to be obligated to listen to others. I think the best way to earn the fellowship and loyalty of others is by being level-headed, mindful, and knowing to defer to others on topics you have limited knowledge on. Not by being the scariest guy in the room.

[bandits1]

All i've known in my adult life is the infantry. I'm accustomed to my leaders having absolute power. When I lead my troops I maintain the same. It IS a hierarchal dictatorship and it functions nicely. However there are checks and balences in that everyone wants to be where they are and you only become a leader by proving yourself over and over again. Its a structure that works. In the event of a zombacalypse I'd emulate this system with the people I have at my disposal. I'd indoctrinate them as well as I can and I would make it work or I wouldn't leave shelter with people who I didn't think we adaptable enough to get with the program.
See? You've already appointed yourself the leader. Why would you think there would be people who would automatically be willing to put themselves "at your disposal"?

No offense, but if you speak and behave in person like you type on this board, I don't think you'd get many votes for leader.

[JakAttak]

All i've known in my adult life is the infantry. I'm accustomed to my leaders having absolute power. When I lead my troops I maintain the same. It IS a hierarchal dictatorship and it functions nicely. However there are checks and balences in that everyone wants to be where they are and you only become a leader by proving yourself over and over again. Its a structure that works. In the event of a zombacalypse I'd emulate this system with the people I have at my disposal. I'd indoctrinate them as well as I can and I would make it work or I wouldn't leave shelter with people who I didn't think we adaptable enough to get with the program.

there should be something more like the military more like a bureaucracy.

[Dave Of The Dead]

The leader simply needs to influence his followers to do what he thinks he's right. The rest should rely on a democratic vote when not in an intense situation.

If you have "people at your disposal" with absolutely no regard to their well-being, you'll die faster than your men. Unless, of course, you send them in a huddle behind them like a scared little p*ssy.

[john154]

You keep talking about "voting." I'm not worried about a vote because you either have what it takes or you don't. If 7 out of 8 people can't step up to the plate and the one that does doesn't know what he's talking where is your competition? Its not an issue of democracy. This is getting to a point where survival of the fittest comes into play and in adverse conditions most modern people wouldn't have the slightest idea how to survive. People are too sheltered and niave to ever concieve of not having clean running water, cars that drive politly in rows and a police man they can call if their neighbour knocks down their fence. Im sure all 8 people in our notional group here are very intelligent and resourceful within their areas of experiance but they've never experianced this before they would likely being going through some minor system shock. This is why people would follow someone who knows chaos and hardship. Someone a little old school. These wars in the middle east are creating men and women who are the first of their generation to know hardship. Sheltered people sitting at home don't get it. Democracy; forget it. Shocked people are going to NEED a leader and be willing to work and follow as long as you don't let them down.

[Faran Brigo]

You're talking like people are always completely rational, that's also naive. People are bound to follow someone who they think is better, not necessarily who actually is better and the thing is, come Z day a good part of those sheltered, naive people are going to want to lead themselves, and if you're not going to convince them, then you're going to have to beat them into submission.

Say you have a group of 9 people, all of them sheltered and meek. When you train them and harden them enough so you don't have to be babysitting them all the time, how long do you think it will take before someone thinks he can do a better job and gets rid of you? or some people get fed up and go their separate ways?

Is it nuts to go alone? yes. Would they have it better sticking in your group? probably. Does that mean they won't do it? You tell me, how often do people make wrong choices because of the way they feel about things?

If 7 out of 8 people can't step up to the plate and the one that does doesn't know what he's talking where is your competition?

In that 1 who doesn't know anything but will still shoot you in the back when you least expect it. If he's dumb no prob, you'll see it coming a mile away, it's going to be that guy who's always giving you a hard time. If he's not, well, could be anyone, could be that innocent looking girl. Could be that kid you picked up while on a raid. Could be one of the people you started with who planned it all from the beggining. By the by, mutinies happen in militaries too, especially in armies made out of undisciplined conscripts not used to following authority like the eastern front during WW1, or "friendly fire" incidents in Vietnam.

[john154]

I don't know if the average educated person has it in them to murder like your talking about. Killing in defense can be easy but murder, especially premedicated murder is hard to do. People throw around "oh i'd shoot him in the back if he told me what to do" but would they? People love to talk big. Its a coping mechanism that helps them when they're scared or frustrated. Everybody does it at times. I've observed before that people who are scared or in shock are ussually very obliging to follow anyone who appears to be in control. I've seen it before while evacuating a town that was burning down. When "civilized" peoples' world comes crashing down they have no conditioned coping mechanisms.

Simpler people, with more primitive educations have less trouble killing because they've grown up with it. They've been killing chickens twice a week all their life or know someone who lost a leg to a landmine. We don't have very many people like that. Yes we're producing better, more dangerous soldiers now due to mass media desensitization to violence but a stressed out average joe on the street probably couldn't commit the kind of murdur your talkin about. I hope not anyway. My faith in general humanity is already hanging by a string.

[Dave Of The Dead]

But you tend to forget that the "average person" will change once they start shooting people in the head to survive the night. I'm talking about dead, walking, flesh eating people, but to most they are still people. Survivors will break down a lot easier than you think and yelling at them like a dictator will only make it easier to snap. That's what you have to look out for.

[Faran Brigo]

When "civilized" peoples' world comes crashing down they have no conditioned coping mechanisms.

False, we have coping mechanisms for stress (I prefer the term "defense mechanism") and they will persist through any sort of crisis, simply because you cannot undo years of conditioning instantly. For instance, many people will be in denial if a zombie outbreak does happen, and some of those will remain in denial until ghouls come crashing through their front doors.

As a matter of fact, subservience to a leader IS part of a defense mechanism, "idealization". Many of the people in this part of the boards, incluiding yourself are using another defense mechanism, "Anticipation". Civilized or not we all have "fight or flight", it's part of our biology. "Flight" will unleash sulking, passive-agressive behavior or subservience. "Fight" will make people snap and lash out at others with a range of responses, from being rude, to commiting murder depending on the stress factors applied to the person, their upbringing and other issues.

a stressed out average joe on the street probably couldn't commit the kind of murdur your talkin about. I hope not anyway. My faith in general humanity is already hanging by a string.

An average Joe who's yelled at by his boss, underpaid, has an unsatisfactory job and represses his anger? Naaah... Unless you count the ocassional postal employee and white collar office worker who suddenly snaps and brings a bunch of guns to work to play target practice until the cops put a bullet in his head. Usually those people find other ways to defend their ego from their anger, such as repression, rationalization, displacement, etc.

An average Joe/Jane who experiences the end of the world as he/she knows it? well, chances are his usual defense mechanisms will either be followed and lead to his demise/survival depending on the specific mechanism, or they will be overwhelmed and the ego will come crashing down. What this implies is unpredictable (at least not reliably so), some people develop dissociative syndromes from the simple thousand-yard stare to actually developing multiple personalities, others schizophrenia, and so on. If their ego restructures and functionality resumes they may very well become meek like sheep and follow you around, they might become paranoid and kill you, or have a psychotic episode and act without regard for the group's (or even their own) wellbeing. They definitely will develop traumas and probably post-traumatic stress disorder which can end in suicide, antisocial behavior or substance abuse.

If you've found out a failsafe way to predict the pattern a certain personality will follow if it shatters at a glance, send a letter to the American Psychiatric Association, I bet they'll put you in the DSM-V acknowledgements in big bold letters. The gist of it is, it would be useful if you're going to be a leader that you were aware of:

1) Pushing someone past their breaking breaking point (or let him reach that stress level on his own) will make the person snap and become a liability or even a threat.

2) The breaking point of every person you're leading or.

3) How to recognize someone who is about to snap with a good measure of confidence.

Or you could just, you know, not be a dictator and listen to people who do know.

[bandits1]

john154 - the posters here all live in different parts of country/world and all come from different walks of life, and so far, almost no one has agreed with you on any of the traits you think an effective leader should possess, nor the methods that person would use to become leader.

I think it's safe to say that no one here would follow you or anyone who possessed the qualities or used the methods you describe - yet you still insist that your tactics to get others to willfully follow you are going to work. The only ones who would follow that person you described are the stupid or the weak. That group is already screwed.

All of the strong, smart people will most certainly form their own separate group away from the loud-mouthed bully who demands to be leader.

[detpat]

Planning is simply the only way to bring everyone home on a task like this. There is a place for command and a place for debate and any group that survives is gonna understand that debate if for what mission to undertake, command is what you exercise while in the tactical environment. You can't survive a combat situation [or anything similar] if you argue each order or debate each decision.

The problems i have seen described so far stem from a confusion of strategic level and tactical level concepts. nobody wants their life dictated on a day to day level and no one wants to die because each team member feels a need to argue each tactical command. Your group needs to hammer out these questions before they become vital.

We need to determine what the scope of this thread i gonna be and concentrate on that aspect of the question. I believe we are just talking about the tactical aspects of foraging, raiding implies taking from another group of survivors as the zeds have no concept of ownership.

[Hitman]

for accual raiding against other humans , it would entail a larger group , and they would have to be deemed hostile . the bikers in dotd come to mind. there could be no survivors .

[Faran Brigo]

I disagree with that as well. Too many cooks will ruin any stew....The leader must therefore take decisions by himself, but only in the field and only when it is impractical to decide as a group or the group cannot decide within a reasonable time limit (depending on the situation, could be 15 minutes, could be one).

Besides, filibustering is already annoying when it's done in a congress in peacetime, it can become a serious liability in a raid.

Yes detpat, that's what I was trying to say in this post, but you clarified it better. I do think that at least early on the tactical and strategic leaders will be the same, simply because the group's limited in size to the point it would be pretty ridiculous to start assigning titles and such.

I used the term raiding in the military sense, which I think is an attack carried out by a group of infiltrators in enemy territory to capture or destroy objectives without the intention of holding that territory. I think that fits here regardless of it being against zeds.

I think it's safe to say that no one here would follow you or anyone who possessed the qualities or used the methods you describe - yet you still insist that your tactics to get others to willfully follow you are going to work. The only ones who would follow that person you described are the stupid or the weak. That group is already screwed. I wouldn't go that far either. Like I said, reactions under stress depend a lot on upbringing, or more clearly, the ideals a person has about how things "should be". Someone who does support messianic figures, or someone who was raised (or trained) not to question authority will follow that kind of leader straight to the gates of hell. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on how you look at it) people of the younger generations in general have not been raised that way, and the underlying value of the culture is Individualism, not Collectivism. In other words, maybe it would work with people from other cultures fine. Fine in the sense that they WOULD follow without problems, it still leaves the problems of yesmen, leadership hubris, etc.

Edit: I suggest we talk about general leadership in the "group management" thread (which was merged with the NOTLD 68 thread), and leave this one solely about raiding.

[JakAttak]

well I hope people will follow a person who will keep them alive not one that makes you happy and comfy.

[Faran Brigo]

Ok, where does it say you have to treat people like dirt to keep them safe? does being a tyrant automatically mean you are keeping people safe? what about inept tyrants that will get their group killed?

In the real world, you can have safety and freedom (though perhaps not without some compromise in one or the other), or you can have neither. The whole idea that it's either a safe tyrant or a democratic pushover is ridiculous nonsense. Furthermore I think if you look at history the people who have been the LEAST safe are people UNDER TYRANTS. And yet authoritarian figures keep drumming up support promising safety, and some people keep buying into it.

Then again I guess that sort of proves John's point, there's always going to be a bunch of people that will go along with that and follow a strong, confident leader to survial, or off a cliff. Could go either way really.

[bandits1]

well I hope people will follow a person who will keep them alive not one that makes you happy and comfy.
In the highly unlikely event this zombie-outbreak should ever happen, you should hook up with john154. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to have at least one follower at his disposal.

[john154]

john154 - the posters here all live in different parts of country/world and all come from different walks of life, and so far, almost no one has agreed with you on any of the traits you think an effective leader should possess, nor the methods that person would use to become leader.

I think it's safe to say that no one here would follow you or anyone who possessed the qualities or used the methods you describe - yet you still insist that your tactics to get others to willfully follow you are going to work. The only ones who would follow that person you described are the stupid or the weak. That group is already screwed.


Part of this opinion could be stemming from the fact people are fixing on the negative aspects of these principles im proposing. They don't have to be negative, ignorant nor bullying and they certainly weren't intended to be when I posed them. Another thing that might figure into your opinions is that you don't have any military experiance or maybe only so much as your highschool football/rugby years to work with but hierarchies are tried, tested and proven. Over and over again. You don't have to like it. It just is.

[bandits1]

You're right - I don't have any military experience, but once again, we're not talking about the military. Like someone mentioned earlier, those military hierarchies work because there are penalties if orders aren't obeyed. In this scenario people aren't going to be obligated by military law to take orders from anyone else.

You've repeatedly used terms/phrases like: "alpha male", "inspire fear", "intimidation", "dictators", "tyrants", "dominate his followers", and "people I have at my disposal"...it's not too hard to fix on the negative aspects of those words. Plus - and correct me if I'm wrong - you already seem to have appointed yourself the leader of whatever group you end up with. How is that your decision?

[Faran Brigo]

I really don't want this thread to jump the shark. I think we should just agree to disagree and move on, or at least take it to group management. I don't see this ending in anything other than a stalemate or digression. Leadership is just one aspect of raiding, very important one but nonetheless, and I don't think it should monopolize so wide a subject.

[Dave Of The Dead]

Military experience in your group will be helpful in most situations. A group should be disciplined, and by that I mean that everyone should respect each other equally. However, those who served in the military need to know that you do not have other soldiers at your "disposal" any more. Men will not be replaced when they get ripped to bits by the undead. In the military you can be court marshaled or whatever if you disobey a command given by your superior. In the age of the zombie, there is no such thing. So in the terms of "sacrificing a hundred men to kill a thousand," you can throw it out the window.

[JakAttak]

yea but there should still be penalties for disobeying an order.

[bandits1]

yea but there should still be penalties for disobeying an order.
Having any kind of punishment - besides expulsion from the group - would be hard to enforce without the persons that are so punished becoming resentful and eventually turning on his punishers. If the crime/violation commited is serious enough, I'd just have a vote to kick that person out of the group. They'd be allowed to take with them only what they came with.

If the group is doing well, the leadership is making the right decisions, and someone still refuses to get with the program and is a serious detriment to morale? Then, yes, kick their ass right to the curb.

I don't expect to have the space, time, or extra personnel to be able to keep anyone imprisoned - and any form of corporal punishment would be taking 100 steps in the wrong direction - so unless the perpatrator murdered somebody(in which case they should be executed), I think expulsion is the only reasonable way to go.

[john154]

Planning is simply the only way to bring everyone home on a task like this. There is a place for command and a place for debate and any group that survives is gonna understand that debate if for what mission to undertake, command is what you exercise while in the tactical environment. You can't survive a combat situation [or anything similar] if you argue each order or debate each decision.

The problems i have seen described so far stem from a confusion of strategic level and tactical level concepts. nobody wants their life dictated on a day to day level and no one wants to die because each team member feels a need to argue each tactical command. Your group needs to hammer out these questions before they become vital.

We need to determine what the scope of this thread i gonna be and concentrate on that aspect of the question. I believe we are just talking about the tactical aspects of foraging, raiding implies taking from another group of survivors as the zeds have no concept of ownership.

Yeah we have wandered pretty far off topic despite how many attemps people have made to put us back on the straight and narrow. Its been an interesting debate but really is going nowhere at a snails pace:x.

The most common manner of raids you'd likely have to conduct after the zombacaypse would probably be "foraging/supply" raids against sites that may or may not be abandoned. Ammo depots, gun stores, warehouses, super markets and liquor stores ect. Naturally your going to want to get in, load up and get out as safely and as quickly as possible but there would be a lot of options to consider in your Teams, Routes, Approach, Assault/Occupation, Actions on the Objective and Withdrawl. Loud or quiet, by foot or big friggin truck and most importantly manpower. A lot to think about really. I've written up a bit of raid on a house to rescue survivors in my "Hastily formed militia. What role will you play?" thread. Someone else give an example of their versian of a raid. Lets see what we're workin with.

[JakAttak]

sorry about this all But if you have access to one why not drop teams i from choppers and fast rope onto buildings.

[Dave Of The Dead]

sorry about this all But if you have access to one why not drop teams i from choppers and fast rope onto buildings.

Because if you do it wrong, you break and ankle. I can imagine doing it if, and only if, your entire group had experience and training doing it. I can imagine piloting a helo is pretty hard too.

[Faran Brigo]

Because if you have that kind of resources, you're in the military and have extensive training, which means you have better ideas on how to do this kind of thing than what we can come up with here. The other thing is if you have the economy to support the logistics of operating a blackhawk or some other transport helo, I doubt you'd need to risk your neck knocking off the local 7/11.

[JakAttak]

just a thought seemed safer than running in through the streets.

[bandits1]

Wow...fast-roping from your group's personal Blackhawk? I want to join that group.

I anticipate the ragtag group I'm in isn't going to have anything close to highly-trained helicopter pilot, much less a fully-fueled and functional helicopter.

[Faran Brigo]

just a thought seemed safer than running in through the streets.

So would MJOLNIR MK. VI armor but I don't see that happening either.

[Dave Of The Dead]

So would MJOLNIR MK. VI armor but I don't see that happening either.

I don't know. If the little explodey flood things can hurt you through that, I can imagine a zombie can gnaw through it too.

The best thing to do would be to travel light. If you bring too much stuff with you or too many people, things are bound to get sticky. A smaller group has less chances for something to go wrong... on the other hand, life always can throw you curve balls.

[JakAttak]

If only we had master chief (spoiler alert if you have not finished Halo 3 1: you're a N00B 2: don't read farther.)






too bad he's stuck in another galaxy slowly floating toward an unidentified planet

[john154]

If only we had master chief (spoiler alert if you have not finished Halo 3 1: you're a N00B 2: don't read farther.)

too bad he's stuck in another galaxy slowly floating toward an unidentified planet

I appreciate that you took half of your post to call us all "NOOBS."

[Faran Brigo]

Speak for yourself buddy, I still can't believe the elites left the covenant. Anyway, chances are better that you would be able to operate something like an LAV, HMMWV or hell even a Bradley IFV than a helicopter, at least those still use engines that can be maintained by regular diesel mechanics and parts you can scavenge out of big trucks and trailers. Even so, I don't consider they would be very useful in a raid since what you're looking for here is mobility, not staying power. It's get in, take what you need and get out.

[Darkness]

"Okay, lets have an assignment......."

"Each of you are a Leader of a Small Raiding Party, (No less than 10 People, no more than 25 People.) There is an abandoned, standard, mall about two miles east of you that you want to raid. (Let's say it's just like the 'Dawn of The Dead' Mall) No survivors, just Zombies, of all types. You have 24 hours to prepare, get in, and get out/away."

"Now, what's your plan? How will you prepare? What will you take with you and why?"

"Ready? Set? GO!!!!!!!!" :)

[john154]

1st Recce out this mall in advance to determine that it is worth our time, effort and the undead presence is manageable. If it does appear to be a valuable resource then clear routes of obstacles in and out with a bulldozer or heavy truck for a quick approach/withdrawl of the raiding party.

Raiding Party:
5 x pick-up truck (recovery cables front/rear, push bars front/rear anchored to frame & passenger/cargo cage in back)
5 x driver
5 x team leaders riding shotgun
15 x rifleman (riding 3 per truck)

Soldiers all recieve detailed briefing including team breakdown, time appreciation, routes in/out, actions on objective, consolidation on objective and withdrawl. Everyone is readied and checked before departure from safe area. Trucks travel with signs on sides giving a cell phone # for survivors who spot them to call.

Trucks move in fast via cleared in route. If zombie presence is slight at mall troops kill everything from the back of the truck as they enter the mall lot. If heavy trucks harrass zombie mob and draw it away from the mall. Once zombie mob follows truck they get a lead on them, stop and shoot as one man dismounts and places large homemade claymore mine in mob's avenue of advance. Trucks resume movement and detonate mine as mob comes upto it. Trucks turn around and return to mall, two trucks driving a secrity curcuit around mall to kill zeds and confirm the condition of entrances. Three trucks settle at main entrance and set up defensive with cargo doors facing main entrance. Security guys may move out and place further claymore mines on likely avenues of zombie mob advance. Center truck breaches main door with grapling hook on its tow cable. 9 riflemen dismount and enter building. Drivers and one troop per truck provide security. Two security trucks complete routes around mall and re-join the force at main door. Security truck's troop dismount and enter building. There are now 15 rifleman inside the building and they conduct the interior portion of the raid as planned searching priority targets first and loading up the trucks at main gate using wheel barrows, dollies ect.

The 5 drivers and 5 security guys at main gate shoot anything that approaches and secure the trucks loads. When the trucks are full or the zombie threat once again becomes a serious danger the search teams are recalled, any claymore deployed are recovered or blown in place. The troops mount up and the convoy leaves via either their initial entry or exit routes as determined by the commander on the ground. Zombies can pursue as they see fit.

[JakAttak]

Well let's get crackin'.

classes: recon man, 2 sniper teams x3, 3 teams to keep escape routes clear 2 each, all the rest split into 2 and go to objective.

forward planning: send in a quick recon team. then using that info split my squads into the locations. give them their assignments. briefing of battle plan.

equipment: recon: first aid, radio, with supplies for a whole day, climbing+rappelling gear, silenced handgun 3 mags.
snipers:radio, first aid, high power binoculars, supplies for 3 days, 1 with climbing and rappelling gear,100 rounds.
Escape route keep clear guys ( I'll make fancy names later): first aid, radio, 1 with .45 carbine 500 rnds, 1 with .223 long rifle 500 rnds.
main team dudes: radio, 3 guys each team with climbing + rappelling gear, 2 guys each team binoculars, M4 carbine, 700 rnds. each, first aid for everyone, 1 guy with explosives, survival supplies for 2 days 1 Gorilla ladder per teams .

The Plan (yes it deserved capital letters): recon goes in very early scouts and reports back. using this I would make small tweaks to the plan. My basic plan is snipers go in to position on rooftops and soften target area. then the assault team goes in and leaves escape route guys at escape route. the assault team takes to the roofs and makes way to target picks up what they need and head back how they came.

[detpat]

looks like a good plan, add in rally points in case of disaster and maybe preface the mall raid by a couple heavy trucks or even snowplows to drive through the lot and play zed zamboni and you could go a long way toward keeping you people as safe as possible.

considering that the zeds are gonna react in a predictable manner, you should always err in the conservative. none of the booty is gonna run away nor the zeds get bored and go on vacation. Be extremely careful and back off at the tiniest hint of anything off plan. you can always come back tomorrow.

[john154]

Its very likely that you can't come back tomorrow. You'd wants minimize dangerous foraging trips and try to get it all the first time. The more you go out the more dangerous situations your exposing your men to. Also once youve breached the mall the first time it'll be possibly be crawling with undead from there after. Keep in mind all the sites you might want to raid it might not be worth it to go back to a lot of places a second time.

[Faran Brigo]

Out of both plans, I prefer John's. Kuddos to you man, it's thought out, a tad ambitious but I think it's doable (minus the bulldozer part) and at least on paper it looks good. Having said that I do have some issues with it, mainly that it's incredibly noisy and high profile which is not necesarily a deal breaker but it does have its inconvenients that need to be compensated IMHO.

Yes ideally you'd want to get it all on the first trip, but not at the cost of ignoring warning signs that could prevent you from sacrificing party members. I think we all agree it's important to avoid recklesness. Personally I consider taking everything that might look useful and pushing to go ahead and ignore your instincts is reckless but hey, I'm no army guy so what do I know.

The mall, ANY mall, will be crawling with undead regardless, because I honestly doubt you'll be the first one to raid it and everyone who saw Dawn of the dead will likely try to copy the movie, everyone who didn't is still going to want to get a flat screen TV or a blu ray player. Likely you won't even need to break in, panicked looters will have already done that for you.

What's the time span you estimate there? You're using riflemen, trucks and explosives, that means every zombie within hearing range of the gunshots is going to come to the mall, so how much time does the scavenging force have to clean the place up before the defense team is overwhelmed? how many zombies are you expecting the defense to hold off and for how long? What are your plans, should you run into armed survivors (both hostile or non-hostile)?

[bandits1]

I understand why most believe that shopping malls - or any obvious provision-rich location - would at some point become zombie-infested....the zombs go where the food is. But once all the food has escaped or is eaten, wouldn't the zombies also leave?

They're not going to remain in a place with no food and they're surely not smart enough to intentionally lie-in-wait in a place that is likely to lure in future meals -- so unless there were people very recently raiding or hiding in the mall, why would there be zombies?

[Faran Brigo]

Because they're not smart enough to deliberately go out hunting for food either. They don't think, what you just said about leaving since there's no food requires:

1.- The capacity to know there's a difference between the mall and the outside world, that is, to know what "inside" and "outside" are. Zombies have rarely shown any interest in their sorroundings, much less the ability to tell them appart.

2.- The ability to learn, that is, to change their behavior (in this case hanging around the mall) in the face of constant failure (in this case, failure to find prey) based on iterative data.

3.- The memory to remember something as simple as "I have been around here, there's no prey" to start checking outside instead of just wandering from store to store like a chronic alzheimers patient.

Zombies are not even as smart as your average animal. I believe Zombie behavior could best compare with machines, like magnetic mines or missiles. They are attracted to noise, smell or sight of humans (so to speak, I know the mines are attracted to magnetic metal), and if they get any sign of prey they will track it until it is destroyed, goes out of detection range or they are destroyed, otherwise they'll wait patiently shuffling around until they detect something simply because they don't know any better. Unless there was something like a loud noise that would get their attention and drag them outside, they'd hang around where they are until they decompose.

That's what I gather from the fiction anyway, for all we know if there were actual zombies they might have the intelligence of rats or even monkeys, which would be very, very bad.

[Dave Of The Dead]

I don't think zombies have the intelligence to see the difference between the glass walls near the exits and the actual glass door that most malls seem to have. If they wanted to get out, the chances of them leaving through both sets of doors would be rare, especially if they are "pull to open" doors.

Any zombie that is stuck in the mall will probably always be stuck in the mall.

[bandits1]

I don't think zombies have the intelligence to see the difference between the glass walls near the exits and the actual glass door that most malls seem to have. If they wanted to get out, the chances of them leaving through both sets of doors would be rare, especially if they are "pull to open" doors.

Any zombie that is stuck in the mall will probably always be stuck in the mall.
Couldn't they just break the glass?

By your reasoning - if they're unable to get out through glass doors - they're also unable to get in, right? You're saying that once you kill all the zombies in any mall with glass doors, that the chances of any more coming in is slim-to-none, right?

You're saying that there could only be a finite amount of zombies in any mall with glass doors - that any zombie residing in a mall with glass doors would had to have been a) already shopping at the mall while still a human b) was infected by a fellow shopper who was already infected but hadn't yet turned when they made their way into the mall through the glass doors?

[bandits1]

Because they're not smart enough to deliberately go out hunting for food either. They don't think, what you just said about leaving since there's no food requires:

1.- The capacity to know there's a difference between the mall and the outside world, that is, to know what "inside" and "outside" are. Zombies have rarely shown any interest in their sorroundings, much less the ability to tell them appart.

2.- The ability to learn, that is, to change their behavior (in this case hanging around the mall) in the face of constant failure (in this case, failure to find prey) based on iterative data.

3.- The memory to remember something as simple as "I have been around here, there's no prey" to start checking outside instead of just wandering from store to store like a chronic alzheimers patient.

Zombies are not even as smart as your average animal. I believe Zombie behavior could best compare with machines, like magnetic mines or missiles. They are attracted to noise, smell or sight of humans (so to speak, I know the mines are attracted to magnetic metal), and if they get any sign of prey they will track it until it is destroyed, goes out of detection range or they are destroyed, otherwise they'll wait patiently shuffling around until they detect something simply because they don't know any better. Unless there was something like a loud noise that would get their attention and drag them outside, they'd hang around where they are until they decompose.

That's what I gather from the fiction anyway, for all we know if there were actual zombies they might have the intelligence of rats or even monkeys, which would be very, very bad.
Let's assume that your guesses about zombie-behavior are 100% accurate; since they have no sense of where they are and just wandering around aimlessly until something draws their intrest, wouldn't it be just as likely that the zombies would wander away from the mall as stay there? There's nothing keeping them from leaving except an automatic door.

Or are you saying that zombies will just stay in one place forever unless their attention is grabbed by a possible food-source? That zombies - barring outside stimulus - would always be found in the general area where they turned into a zombie?

[Hitman]

Let's assume that your guesses about zombie-behavior are 100% accurate; since they have no sense of where they are and just wandering around aimlessly until something draws their intrest, wouldn't it be just as likely that the zombies would wander away from the mall as stay there? There's nothing keeping them from leaving except an automatic door.

Or are you saying that zombies will just stay in one place forever unless their attention is grabbed by a possible food-source? That zombies - barring outside stimulus - would always be found in the general area where they turned into a zombie?

thats what they did in both dotd's and lotd . the ones in lotd were in the places where they had died and just kinda loitered in the same area . then when another stimmulas cought thier attention that was thier main focus.

[john154]

thats what they did in both dotd's and lotd . the ones in lotd were in the places where they had died and just kinda loitered in the same area . then when another stimmulas cought thier attention that was thier main focus.

Yeah dude. Thats all very akin to Romero's ideas. Can't really argue with a loyalist:)

[Faran Brigo]

Let's assume that your guesses about zombie-behavior are 100% accurate;

They're based on observation of the Romero movies. Even if they were 100% accurate (nothing based on empirism is 100% accurate), that does not mean "real" zombies would act that way but, really, think about it. How are we going to discuss anything about undead zombies with any certainty being that a real one has never been documented?

wouldn't it be just as likely that the zombies would wander away from the mall as stay there? There's nothing keeping them from leaving except an automatic door.

To a point, yes. It would though, take a strong noise or scent for the zombies to hear it inside the mall and be drawn outside by it. Thus the number of things that could make the zombies wander outside is limited a bit, so no they're not equally likely to wander away. It's more likely that the mall would block out stuff that could get their attention so it's more likely that once they're in, they'll stay in. This also applies however, to any other structure.

Or are you saying that zombies will just stay in one place forever unless their attention is grabbed by a possible food-source? That zombies - barring outside stimulus - would always be found in the general area where they turned into a zombie?

Unless they were otherwise transported, that's exactly what I'm saying yes.

[bandits1]

Seeing as how most surviving groups would be trying to conserve ammo -- wouldn't it make more sense to just have a couple of members make a lot of noise to attract the zombies' attention, lure them away from the mall or whatever buiding/area you need to enter, and have the bulk of the zombies "chase" them down the street so the rest of the group can then raid the mall in relative safty(barring the stray zombie or twelve who failed to hear the diversion)?

[Faran Brigo]

That's why John suggested the two trucks breaking off to cause a diversion I think.

[JakAttak]

Distractions can be messy and dangerous. wouldn't it be practical to be undetected.

[Hitman]

Distractions can be messy and dangerous. wouldn't it be practical to be undetected.

well planned distractions should be messy and dangerous , for the zombies. trying to sneak in and remove supplies while remaining undetected sounds far more dangerous and much slower . time spent in the hot zone should be kept to a minimum . the longer your there ,the more chances you have to screw something up or make a noise that would draw the zeds to you.

I really like the idea of lureing the zeds to a preplaced anit-personel charge . it could be anything from some iron pipe mortors , bucket claymores , or topling a building over onto them . even fire and pits with spikes (not to impale the zeds , just hold them in place ) could be dug in a short while with some heavy equipment.

[bandits1]

Distractions can be messy and dangerous. wouldn't it be practical to be undetected.
I think it would be near-impossible to gainfully scavenge a shopping mall that's crawling with zombies and go undetected. Better to lure as many of them as possible out in the open and away from the mall so there are less surprises.

[detpat]

why waste all your time and effort trying to do all these complicated stunts when you can drop by the local road dept. garage and pick up a couple snowplow trucks and just squash the zeds wholesale? hell you can have some fun and much needed stress relief while you're at it.

[Faran Brigo]

For one, because you're not going to drive a snowplow into the building you're trying to get into, the other is that a snowplow is designed to, well, plow not squash. It's possible, and I think probable, that all you'll do is knock them aside, maybe kill a few crawlers.

Then there's the whole "canned food" issue, the fact that you'll have to raid the road dept. garage itself, that most of us can't hotwire and rather not risk looking for keys that could be anywhere, and so on and so on.

[JakAttak]

snowplows are harder to drive and get hung up on debris.

[DarthJoe8]

I've had day dreams of using a front end loader to squash and scoop zeds. :loon: Kinda like they did in the movie Soylent Green, "dispersing" the food rioters. :guns:

With a big enough loader you can use the bucket to lift people onto the top of "low" buildings or into upper windows.....even put a "sniper" in it. Keep the shooter just out of the reach of lower zeds and shoot-em from safety. :think:

As far as finding the keys to the trucks and equipment, they keep all the keys in a central location. They don't "hide" them, they might lock them up but you shouldn't have a problem getting them. :think:

:drinking:

[Bob]

With a trackhoe you can just lock the door to the cab and run over them.
It would be almost as good as a tank.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5345/1999johndeere80miniexcass2.jpg

[EvilWeasel35]

By creeping very quietly in the dark with night vision goggles... like a worm...
(No, I don't mean a worm wearing goggles!)

[fedrik]

Very good thoughts.