Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Zombies and Napalm

A friend of mine with an interest in chemistry (and, well, Mad Science in general) asked, "How well does napalm work on zombies?"

My answer? Works fine, as long as you don't need to collect supplies from that area afterwards. Or possibly be standing nearby yourself, afterwards.
"Ha-ha! Man, look at those zombies burn!"

"Oh, yeah. Look, one's down already."

"I'd bet five that the one with the hat is the last one down."

"No bet. He's still staggering along pretty good there... Hey, is he heading for the gas station?"

"Oh my God, I think he is..."

::Sound of running footsteps::

::MASSIVE EXPLOSION::

9 comments:

  1. That had me laughing :) You painted that scene rather vividly.

    Ever thought about writing a screenplay regarding the Zombie Apocolypse

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting theory, but one dependent on a concentration of Zed's in order to achieve good effect. I would add noisemakers to a designated 'kill bowl'...and then fire for effect.

    The last thing you want to happen is to blow up your nearby gas supply.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Exactly. I think that fire is usually a bad anti-zombie measure, simply because it tends to be imprecise and unpredictable. That's not to say that you couldn't use it ever, but you definitely want a controlled burn.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Douse the zombies in Ammonium Nitrate? That should increase their burn rate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm pretty sure zombies were napalm-ed in the fourth Resident Evil/Biohazard film. It didn't actually kill the zombies; however it did incinerate a significant portion of Tokyo. [I remember in the first Resident Evil film, they couldn't figure out how to kill the zombies. Lol, they never considered shooting them in the head...]

    ReplyDelete
  6. World War Z made a persuasive case that most military equipment would work poorly on zombies, and that the American officer corps is too doctrinally rigid to adapt to this fact in time.

    Weapons: if you assume that zombies don't bleed or breathe and won't stop moving if they have an intact brain and any intact muscle mass, most conventional weapons will fare pretty poorly. Artillery, MRLS, bombs and missile warheads will have greatly reduced effectiveness because they need fragments to actually hit brain matter to stop a zombie. Anti-tank weapons would be more or less useless. As for napalm, it would matter how durable zombie brains are imagined to be but it seems reasonable to assume that 10 minutes at 800 degrees would stop them. However, the US armed forces no longer make heavy use of napalm. The use of incendiary weapons on humans is considered inhumane (it is), banned by treaty in many countries and avoided by the US. So, there would be little if any napalm available at the beginning of the conflict. (There would be some white phosphorus, but it doesn't operate the same way and I suspect it would be much less effective.) Rifles would likely be the most important weapon in the current arsenal.

    The real problem is leadership. 10 000 trained soldiers armed with rifles ought to be able to stop a few hundred thousand zombies, but only if their commanders recognize what they're up against and adapt their tactics accordingly.

    The WWZ account is written from the perspective of an infantry soldier watching everything go wrong around him as his division tries to stop zombified New York from eating New Jersey. He sees soldiers ordered to dig into defensive positions, which is absurd because this provides no protection at all -- rooftops would be better. Riflemen equipped with normal soldier's loads quickly run out of ammunition. The worst thing is the psychological impact of seeing the usual array of American wonder weapons fail. Confusion and panic spread over their fancy communications system ("I shot one in the head and it didn't die!"). Chaos and rout.

    So yeah, napalm would work, but the army doesn't plan on using it and nothing works if you don't keep your head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kinda remember World War Z [I read it way back in 2007].

      Didn't the military end up creating some sort-of harpoon-style hook gun, specifically to penetrate zombie skulls? harpoons are reusable - a society ravaged by a zombie plague just doesn't have the manpower to effectively operate ammunition factories.

      Delete
  7. "World War Z made a persuasive case that most military equipment would work poorly on zombies, and that the American officer corps is too doctrinally rigid to adapt to this fact in time."
    It made an utterly idiotic case based on an understanding of weaponry that seems to have been derived from video games.

    "Weapons: if you assume that zombies don't bleed or breathe and won't stop moving if they have an intact brain and any intact muscle mass, most conventional weapons will fare pretty poorly. Artillery, MRLS, bombs and missile warheads will have greatly reduced effectiveness because they need fragments to actually hit brain matter to stop a zombie."

    You need fragments to actually hit brain matter to kill a zombie, yes. Good thing cluster munitions put out a lot of fragments. Saying that it's possible to be near an MRLS and not get hit in the head is like saying it's possible to walk into a rainstorm and have no water fall on your head. And that's before we take overpressure into account. Even if no material penetrates the brain, it doesn't matter when it turns into jelly. (And don't forget the USA uses thermobarics).
    If you're going to argue that zombies are somehow immune to overpressure... okay, they are now also immune to bludgeoning weapons.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMShVkgvQEs

    "Anti-tank weapons would be more or less useless."
    A) Because when you see massed, unarormed 'infantry', you're immediately going to fire anti-armor weapons, because the Military is stupid.
    B) Anti-tank weapons tend to hit with a lot of force - hit someone with it, and they'll be pulped. Even if the shock (that is, the physical force) of the blow doesn't crush the brain, you now have a zombie with nothing that might really be considered a bone structure... they may be able to crawl, but not much more. And that's talking about something like an autocannon firing AP. HEAT would blow the zombie apart (it's still high explosive), and it's quite possible that the shockwave of a 120mm round's passing can kill. (Uneccessary, note. A tank still has several machine guns and HE shells)

    "As for napalm, it would matter how durable zombie brains are imagined to be but it seems reasonable to assume that 10 minutes at 800 degrees would stop them."
    Jesus - anything that can survive 10 minutes at 800 degrees ought to be way tougher than your average zombie. The human brain is unlikely to survive 10 seconds at 800 degrees. The only difference between dropping napalm on zombies from on humans is that will continue shambling for the few moments before their brains cook and their flesh burns to ash, instead of flailing around screaming.

    "However, the US armed forces no longer make heavy use of napalm. The use of incendiary weapons on humans is considered inhumane (it is), banned by treaty in many countries and avoided by the US. So, there would be little if any napalm available at the beginning of the conflict."
    This bit is technically true... the US no longer makes heavy use of napalm. Because napalm is obsolete. Instead, we use a kerosene based fuel enriched with oxidizing agents and WP... it's less toxic, but burns hotter and faster. Which only makes the situation more extreme. The Mark-77 Incendiary Bomb containing 75 gallons of this substance have been used as recently as Operation Iraqi Freedom. You've somehow mistaken an upgrade for a disarmament.

    "(There would be some white phosphorus, but it doesn't operate the same way and I suspect it would be much less effective.)"

    White Phosphorous is indeed primarily use as a smoke agent... it's a particulate, rather than creating big plumes of fire, so... yes, it might be less effective.


    "Rifles would likely be the most important weapon in the current arsenal."
    Some would argue this is true in any event...

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The real problem is leadership. 10 000 trained soldiers armed with rifles ought to be able to stop a few hundred thousand zombies, but only if their commanders recognize what they're up against and adapt their tactics accordingly."
    The Mozambique drill is still common practice. (How long it'd take to omit first half is ambigous - it may actually be better to keep it as) And despite what World War Z seems to think, the US Military is not actually run by robots who mindlessly repeat doctrine. I don't think it's likely that a deficit of leadership will be a problem against an enemy that is literally nonsentient.

    "He sees soldiers ordered to dig into defensive positions, which is absurd because this provides no protection at all -- rooftops would be better."
    Foxholes, or barricades? Because barricades would... you know, help. But either one would not be consistent with US military doctrine - which focuses on rapid movement and attack over digging in and holding defensive positions. Meanwhile, something like a FOB (or an actual defensive line) would be much better defended than a mere foxhole. Guard towers, concrete or metal walls, mines, surrounded by forests of razor wire... that said, most of the combat would be concentrated away from the FOBs/curtain, with small mechanized forces making runs out into infested territory, supported by artillery and air power.

    "Riflemen equipped with normal soldier's loads quickly run out of ammunition."
    Normal soldier's loads aren't intended for a siege. Officers know this. Do you really think soldiers going into an extended operation wouldn't be equipped for an extended operation?

    "The worst thing is the psychological impact of seeing the usual array of American wonder weapons fail."
    As mentioned, they wouldn't (excepting the weapons you'd pretty much expect to fail, like anti-tank weapons against infantry)...

    "Confusion and panic spread over their fancy communications system ("I shot one in the head and it didn't die!"). Chaos and rout."
    Wha... that's... just... because that's how CCI works...


    Further weapons that might be effective against zombies, despite most people thinking they wouldn't:

    Machine guns - the expedient of 'aim high' aside, the impact of a series of large projectiles on a body should not be underestimated. Heavy machine guns are known to tear people in half, and even a smaller caliber gun could knock a zombie down (they aren't the most surefooted fellers) or break bones/spine (which may or may not incapacitate them).

    Nerve gas/other neurotoxins: It's well established that destroying the brain kills the zombie - this suggests that nervous system still works somehow. If the zombie's nervous system is still even remotely chemically based, nerve gas should work against them - although obviously it can't be administered as efficiently, only slowly soaking into the skin... but it would still reduce the nervous system to tatters, and that's saying nothing about other types of neurotoxin...

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to leave comments; it lets me know that people are actually reading my blog. Interesting tangents and topic drift just add flavor. Linking to your own stuff is fine, as long as it's at least loosely relevant. Be civil, and have fun!