The “28 X later” films were set in Europe but didn’t really explore this idea. There is some possible merit to it- but also some downsides. Things like castles and armor require support systems and skilled labor to be long term viable- so there’s a hurdle to start. While they are more common in Europe they also aren’t exactly super common nor hav most been kept up in effective and ready shape. Speaking on the armor....
Plate isn’t quite what it’s made out to be. The weight of the armor depends a lot on the era and purpose of its construction. As firearms became part of combat and got better and better, full armor for heavier and heavier to offer protection from firearms. Expect a full plate suit that isn’t “bullet resistant” to weigh maybe 60lbs or so. Later suits of full armor could be much heavier. Tournament armor and the like was also often heavy and restricted movement by design. But contrary to what many think earlier era “battle armor” of full plate would allow most people pretty full movement and speed.
It’s still weight though. About what a modern soldier carries in total gear including weapons, armor, electronics, provisions etc. so if you add things like food or water, tools, and weapons you’ll be carrying probably about 1.5x what a modern soldier does. So as far as scavenging and the like your options become slightly limited. While you’d still be mobile- you’d make more noise. You take up more space so hiding and other options such as passing narrow spaces becomes more limited.
You’ll require more food and water because of the extra effort you’re exerting and to avoid dehydration. Full plate will get HOT worn long term and moved around in. Imagine Europe’s current heat wave- but you’re in a self contained oven with like 5 layers of metal, leather, and cloth. You will be slower than without armor and if you DO get spotted by zombies running distance will be shorter. Speed will be slower. Your chances against 1-3 or 4 zombies in a straight CQB fight are better. But.... if the horde comes you’re likely fucked. They will swarm you. They will overwhelm you, take you to the ground, and dog pile you.
The more zombies pile over you the hotter it will get. You could suffocate or die from the heat. They may crush you, and after awhile or clawing and tearing and the like there’s good odds they could break links in your armor or expose flesh through gaps and your defense will become a tomb. Although that itself is a cool idea for a zombie film- the guy who tried to wear full plate and got turned, so is now a tireless, relentless zombie wearing thick bullet proof armor and weighing in at over 250lbs. That would be a good “boss” and a cool thing to see.
Even 60 pounds ain't all that much dispersed over your entire body. I've covered some real distance with 30 pounds of gear plus a 60+ pound rucksack, so in defensive positions or going on sorties against exclusively melee opposition some guys in knights armor are set against zombies.
I'll have to be sure to have my boys stake out castles and museums so we can pick the armor off the idiots that forgot to account for the most dangerous game.
There’s a reason that in actual combat full armored troops were supported by other armored troops and other types of units as well as retainers and helpers. For the most part wearing plate for more than a few hours at a time becomes impractical under most circumstances. An organized force using tactical deployment of full armor from a “base” of some sort and primarily for defensive actions or “clearing” entries and exits for scouting parties and the like could work well.
Likewise brining a couple armored troops along with scouting or other expedition parties as part of a full unit strategy could work. But if you’re alone or relatively so- or if it’s day 2 of the outbreak and you’re on the move and disorganized- the armor may end up being a liability. As a matter of fact- there is little of any practical benefit to full plate armor against zombies that one cannot get from wearing proper motorcycle leathers and gear.
Such gear is not only much more commonly found around the world in the modern age, comes with many more advanced features, will be lighter, quieter, easier to deal with repair or replace, require less maintenance, and for most practical encounters will provide the same essential protections such as being able to withstand human bites and stretches (moto GP gear can have a guy take a spill at triple digit speeds and walk away almost unscathed, so unless your zombies are capable of generating more abrasion that asphalt at 70-100mph you can rest easy.)
Motorcycle gear would also be much quieter and comes in varieties meant to deal with weather extremes of hot and cold. Many have build in temperature control systems like heating or cooling which would give you the option to carry a portable power source and system to help regulate temperature as needed.
Perhaps an optimal “zombie armor” of the modern age might combine what are deemed the “best” elements of several types of era and occupational armors, maybe the gauntlets of full plate and bracers etc over motorcycle armor. Perhaps a helmet of another make, some aspect of a modern soldier or riot officers armor etc.
What I can say is this- if we think about what armor of old was made to do- the types of fighting it was designed for- we will realize that there is little to indicate that historically a single armored person or even a handful could be sent against thousands or hundreds of thousands or more even unarmed opponents and be expected to win. In most populated modern settings the sheer number of zombies you are likely to encounter far exceeds anything an armor maker would have envisioned or designed against.
Honestly, if and when SHTF priority one is to maintain the supply lines as best as possible. Major roads, ports, railways. All would be ideal but even one or bits of a couple could be major to achieving sustainability.
Failing that, fuck off with my closest buddies and rally with my family in the Northwest.
Have a specialized squad to clear out individual buildings, guard them from rivals with a perimeter of men with guns.
Also, ambush armored persons to resupply and maintain or add to my own crew.
Plate armor MIGHT actually work effectively against modern guns. It depends on many factors. While often crude many early small arms packed the force of very large caliber weapons by today’s standards- a musket could have the impact of a
.50 cal round for example. They weren’t accurate and had other airings as well as relatively short effective range, and a ball projectile isn’t a good penetrator.
Most modern firearms make good penetrators but some more than others. A 9mm pistol or submachine gun round- especially a “hollow point” round- can be stopped, as many small caliber rounds can- by armor made of books and tape. A modern .50, 308 (aka 7.62) etc. would likely make short work at effective range of most any antique plate armor. But the most common rounds used tend to be ones which have relatively low penetration. The US military uses depleted uranium tipped .223 (analogous to 556) which is essentially a long .22 caliber round in terms of this discussion. Low armor penetration and stopping power to the caliber but favorable ballistics and logistics (you can carry more 223 that 308, less recoil etc.) and against unarmored or lightly armored targets (most enemies) the round causes a high chance of incapacitation with a hit.
Military rounds have a higher armor penetration than most standard civilian counterparts in the same caliber because they are designed as such. So wether many common calibers would penetrate armor depends a lot on the weapon being used. A very common home defense weapon is a shotgun with some type of scatter shot, also poor performance against armor. Range, where the hit lands, variant of ammo, etc. would play in yo how effective antique plate armor would be at stopping a modern round.
The armor itself also plays a huge role. Lighter more manageable armors would likely fair worse. But guns existed on the battlefield with plate armor for centuries, and as firearms became more efficient, the armors often became stronger and heavier. It isn’t necessarily true to say that plate armor was retired because it couldn’t protect against guns. The armor required to do so was simply impractical- and as doctrine of war moved more and more to mobility and things like supply line strategy became more paramount- armor was a bit of a liability for the protection it offered.
what the US military uses doesnt matter. This isnt the US military that is being discussed, its civilian europe and the most common rounds and weapons are of the hunting variety. idk about europe but around here we very often use 308 rounds for hunting deer as well as muzzle loaders which, as you said above with muskets, we pre-messure to be effectively a 50 cal round but with modern projectiles rather than round shot.
Archers were largely skilled warriors, and in fact outside peasant armies warfare was a very skilled art. But as guns became more efficient and armies became larger as did available pools for troops- one could simply use a “swarm tactic” like in many games- low cost units with relatively high offense in large numbers. A line of in armored troops firing volleys of powerful projectiles at the other side. Soldiering was still a skill- but not quite as involved in that regard as one needed the discipline etc of a soldier- but could focus on the skills of speed loading and firing and the like as opposed to all the intricacies of melee combat.
So there is truth to the common idea that guns played a part in heavy armors demise- but it’s not entirely true. A suit of amor may protect against one or a few shots from a weapon but not only would ultimately fail from heavy fire but also carried draw backs in mobility etc that weren’t offset by the need to keep any individual soldier alive. The armor itself could cause fatigue and lack of situational awareness amongst other things- so even for those in positions of command the liability was greater than the benefit. In more modern combat the weapons and tactics in use all but preclude the usefulness of heavy armors.
But they COULD be of some tactical value in a “zombie apocalypse” type situation- I just doubt they’d be the game changer the original meme makes them out to be. Especially when more modern and versatile let alone manageable solutions exist.
Was trying to reply @guest_ but can't seem to click the bottom reply. Chainmail and halberds for all the regular people would probably be great zombie defense honestly. Just keep out the teeth and stab at the heads. I'm picturing Warhammer Vermintide now.
@nightkami , if you're using adblocker there's an invisible banner at the bottom of the screen that prevents the lowest part from being clicked. Use inspect element to delete that then you're peachy.
@famousone If you like a very visceral first person action game then hell yes. It's like taking skyrim and adding much more in depth combat mechanics while cutting the skill trees way down. The only drawback for me is the controller support for steam has no vibration. The controller feedback on console adds awesome immersion.
Just go to a military base. Controlled access, mostly secured, populated mostly with trained warfighters, many of whom are actual door-kickers, and plenty of stockpiled resources and munitions.
I'll have to be sure to have my boys stake out castles and museums so we can pick the armor off the idiots that forgot to account for the most dangerous game.
Failing that, fuck off with my closest buddies and rally with my family in the Northwest.
Also, ambush armored persons to resupply and maintain or add to my own crew.
.50 cal round for example. They weren’t accurate and had other airings as well as relatively short effective range, and a ball projectile isn’t a good penetrator.