>>4169
>Guns run out of ammo
>Implying ammo is actually a problem ( it's not, assuming the Marines shoot properly they'll spend as much ammo to clear out a whole town as they usually do to kill a hidden sniper )
>Implying swords don't need to be maintained ( that goes double for european medieval swords made of shitty iron )


Though for that kind of situation, the best would be 50 british soldiers ( the ones in colonies )

(>USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Benefits only one group has:

Marine
+technology
+immunization

Crusaders
+brute strength
+extreme toughness (by modern standards)

It depends on whether they're in a developed region or not. I'd take the Marines to compensate for foreign disease and (my) lack of extended survivability. If I were in a developed area, I'd take the Crusaders because of their huge not-pussies edge on almost everyone else.

File 138814846096.jpg - (61.66KB , 600x800 , FOLDED OVER 1000 BILLION TIMES.jpg )

>>4956
>>4956
>european medieval swords made of shitty iron

MOSHI MOSHI KAWAI DESU?

>>4956
They'd probably know how to repair their swords.

>>4977

If the Crusader had access to his smith then he would also have his sutlers and other camp followers and the baggage-train that supplied his needs and luxuries. That would mean that the Marines would also have their logistical support system, and therefore every jarhead will have his ammo-resupply. Advantage, USMC.

On the other hand, while swords get all the press, attention, and adulation, even at this early date it had already been pushed into a subsidiary role; the Crusader knight and man-at-arms first primary weapon would be a lance/heavy spear, followed (given the heavily armored nature of his Saracen enemy) by mace or battle-ax, both of which would provide very good service indeed against zombies. Also, don't forget the archer/crossbowman corps to provide fire support and flank security.

50 random civilians with a six month training and a lot of state of the art tech gadget will do a great job. Until they run out of ammo.

50 warriors trained to melee fight since they are 6 year old will do a great job.

Skill>stuff

Context please?

Are you talking:
- zerg-rush, a la WorldWarZ, (marines would last 5 minutes longer)
- 28 weeks later(city) (marines would last half a day longer)
- lower intensity zombie rush a la (28 days later countryside (knights would have to learn to hunt) but would prevail
- long haul, a la TheRoad/WalkingDead (ditto)

File 140038860289.jpg - (10.21KB , 250x225 , MCMAP.jpg )

>>5063
>random civilians with a six month training
What do you mean? Marines are not just trained for 6 months and then done forever. Even the national guard you have to go to debriefings and PT every other weekend.

Also, U.S. Marines do not get very high tech gadgets. Some stuff like radios, but that's useless if no one else is there to talk to. Otherwise it's just a rifle and some other gear.

>>5100
Yeah; the Corps sucks hind tit when it comes to gear, which is why they have traditionally been masters at getting the most out of what they did have. For example, after the Army got the Apache attack helicopter the Marines were left with the old Vietnam-era Cobras...which they retrofitted with upgrades to make it as good a combat platform as any in the world. They say that you can't make bread without flour, but the USMC have been doing so, and doing it WELL, for a couple hundred years now.

>>5101
Mhmm... It's mainly the Navy and Airforce who have all the technology. Army gets some good stuff, and the USMC basically gets shit and has to make do.

I vote for the Crusader Knights. Most of these guys were raised as villagers which is the next thing to being a post-apocalypse survivor. It also depends on the basic scenario.

Team vs Team: The U.S. Marines got this.

Cooperative: The Crusaders have the background to see them through.

Teams Isolated from One Another: The Crusaders definitely have the more appropriate skill set.

In two out of three scenario, the Crusaders are better positioned to survive, so I'm throwing in my vote with them.

I vote very confidently for the Marines, and this is due to just two words: Battlefield Medicine.

See, the marines are all going to be trained at least in basic first-aid. They know how to clean and dress wounds, how to prevent infection, how to diagnose ailments. They'll all know human anatomy and medical technique well enough to at least perform a successful amputation if necessary. In a squad of that size, there will be several well-trained medics to boot. Once they run out of supplies, they'll still be savvy enough to do things like use alcohol to disinfect wounds.

The crusaders, on the other hand, don't even know what infection IS, much less how to prevent/treat it. In short order, all of them are going to die of relatively small wounds out there in the wastes. You step on a rusty nail, you're dead. You brush your leg against an old barbed-wire fence, you're dead. You get hit in the hand with one of your friend's swords, you're dead.

>>5393
>I vote for the Crusader Knights. Most of these guys were raised as villagers which is the next thing to being a post-apocalypse survivor. It also depends on the basic scenario.
Nope.

Knights were rarely lowborn, most knights are nobles who started their careers as children as pages then squires; the only way a commoner could rise to the status of knight is if they really impressed the shit out of someone during a battle, otherwise all of the traditional ways to become a knight were just way too financially prohibitive to a majority of the population. There were non-noble knights, granted, but those guys were generally mercenaries that were paid by some noble family to take the place of some son that's either too young or worthless to actually participate in the crusades (can't outright ignore the call to the crusade because it's instigated by the church and any God-fearing noble family that outright defies it won't be noble for much longer).

Villagers who were conscripted or lured by the promise of land ownership into crusader armies filled the ranks of pikemen, archers, and every other role that was essentially disposable. They would have been the guys with the knowledge of how to live off the land, not the knights.

>>5432
Actually, The Marines do NOT have their own medical unit nor get trained for such an event. Their medics come from the NAVY in the form of Hospital Corpsmen. So Marines alone wouldn't cut it.

Experience: Former Hospital Corpsman - US Navy

File 148225803781.png - (1.19MB , 1600x795 , s_e_v_e_n_swordman__s_by_geerdesings-d4lzjfc.png )

I vote for the knights cause they can slash the fucking throat outta of the zombies.

They are knights and will act reasonable while us marines dont possess the capability of fuck off.

US marines are just marines. Smoke some joints, get high and do the poppa poppa pop.

>Crusaders whip out the Ark
>Marines' entire country is destroyed

The crusaders would have a hard time not infecting themselves because of the use of swords (lots of fluid contacting the blades) vs. guns (one headshot, no splatter).

The way I see it. The Marines would do better initially as guns obviously have the range advantage, but as the ammo wears thin they would eventually be fucked even in Hand to hand, the knights would do better long term assuming they use good tactics and don't just run at the zombies like some crazed assholes with a death wish.

>>5610
Knights usually fought in formation, or at least in command of a formation of lower-ranked troops. Like pretty much all european nobility since at least the bronze age, and perhaps even going as far back as the late neolithic era. There is no such thing as "blindly charging into battle" like some hollywood-fantasy "barbarian".

Crusaders because ammo runs out faster than a sword's sharpness. Also because they most likely will have more knowledge and experience about real life. While the Marines are good at offensive, the Crusaders are better at defensive. If the Crusaders fled a crowd of zombies, they would be able to defend themselves against them because they don't rely on guns (which use limited resources). But for the Marines, their supplies would run out easily, and if they take up all of the remaining supplies in the world, eventually they would lose all other remaining supplies altogether and would have to rely on weapons that don't rely on limitation. So they would only last for a short time, being most effective at attacking zombies but not so for defending themselves.

imo. crusaders have the upper hand.

>>4119
Chainmail for the win. Fight as they may, sooner or later someone is going to get bit. Marine's cloth uniforms aren't going to hold up long, but knight's chainmail will grind those zombie's teeth out.

For real, I hope I can get a full-body chainmail (shirt, pants, gloves, hood) before the end comes.

>>5664
I would pay a million dollars to watch you, or anyone else, try and bite through a modern soldier's uniform, especially the kevlar parts.

That's not to mention how you're assuming the chainmail is made of modern steel so as to be corrosion-resistant. Since we're talking about historical Crusaders, their armor is going to rust away to nothing very quickly.

>>4119
If 50 fully-armed marines made it out of the initial incident together they would become one of the most powerful forces in whatever country they were in. It's not like the guns are the only thing in their arsenal, with or without the weapons you're talking about 50 mentally strong motherfuckers who've received some amount of survival training. A lot of them probably came from backgrounds like hunting/bushcraft/airsoft/etc., all of them have seen zombie media before because they're from the modern day. Assuming you're dealing with classic zombies and not oceans of super saiyan nu-zombies, and also assuming that they don't take on too many new people, they could take on a nomadic lifestyle, survive and probably prosper

File 159898764531.jpg - (178.28KB , 700x430 , Crusader Killing.jpg )

The Crusaders would do better than the Marines.
The reason for this is because we aren't talking about surviving for a few years. The Marines would likely run out of ammo in half a year tops, maybe if they are lucky they can last one year before they run out of ammunition.
After that they only have what makeshift weapons they can conjure up before they die.
The Crusaders however have specially crafted melee weapons, horses, armor, and years of experience of combat. They would survive in the long run for thirty to fifty years before dying of natural causes. Some might even make it longer.
That's assuming that this is a blank world where ammo and supplies are virtually non-existant. But I'd still take a Crusader over a Marine any day simply because I know he can win a fight without air support or crying about ptsd afterwards.

File 159898903635.png - (1.80MB , 1130x884 , Crusader Victory.png )

Never Forget
https://youtu.be/pT7VNCM12G4

>>5683
its not like the whole uniform is made of kevlar, its just nylon and a single plate on the front and back to protect vital organs, and i think some get side plates too. either way it doesn't matter, the point i'm making is that a zombie could still bite a fabric art hard enough to break the skin underneath and his saliva could soak through into the wound potentially. chain mail would disperse the pressure of the teeth and prevent the skin from breaking and they would probably get a bruise at worst.

>>5722
(((modern estimates)))

>>5733
Get your antisemitism the fuck out of here.

Marines:
>might be able to kill up to 100 times their number with perfect ammunition usage, Zombies won't stand a chance!!!
>oh fuck, that's only like 5000 Zombies, actually not a lot in context
>using their equipment immediately alerts all Zombies in an area
>can only run as fast as a human with a heavy backpack
>and even if we let them be fully motorized or have a helicopter, what are they going to do? Fly/Drive from place to place, waste their ammunition and alert Zombies?

Knights
>was able to so completely outmatch untrained, unarmored peasants, that you could control entire Kingdoms with just a few hundred knights
>the morale stat of the Zombies are broken, but they are really stupid as well
>Knight can functionally kill an unlimited amount of Zombies in any context
>In Situations where a cavalry charge is suicide, because of too dense Zombie Hordes, they can just slaughter them on foot or pick their battles
>can pick their battles, because their weapons won't alert Zombies from everywhere
>can use all kinds of various strategies, using chokepoints, stealth, etc to destroy Zombies
>chainmail and plate armor can protect against bites, Zombies can't pierce their armor and neither can they organize into formations, which if it wasn't for the fact of them having no morale state, would mean absolute destruction for the Zombies

Yeah. Zombies won't be able to do shit against Knights. Their only weakness would be bad writing to create tension in medium, where that sort of thing would be depicted.

The Marines wouldn't be bad btw. It's just that their tactics, equipment and training doesn't prepare them for a fight against Zombies, but they would still fare pretty well, once they adapt, because they would be vastly more powerful than a typical human.

File 160228981794.png - (287.19KB , 800x400 , Untitled.png )

Let's flip the script.

>>5734
Don't mind him. You are one of the good goyim.

>>5738
The liberals because they're naturally collectivist (they will work together) while conservatives are naturally competitive (they will fight each other as well as the zombies). Surviving any sort of hardship has less to do with individual traits and more to do with the actions of the group as a whole.

>>5738
>Liberals have no brain

So they're safe

>>5746
>Surviving any sort of hardship has less to do with individual traits and more to do with the actions of the group as a whole.
This is why I think the conservatives would be better off, actions. The conservatives will act without thought, at times in a manner detrimental to the group but they will still act.
The liberals however will debate and consider every issue before committing, time will not be on their side.

While the liberals spend time debating the best way to keep the Mexicans out the conservatives will be building a wall from anything on hand and actually keeping them out.

Provide the liberals survive the short term the long game is on their side, but realistically the conservatives will be coming out of the short game stronger and will overrun them when their own supplies dwindle.

>>5748
>the conservatives will be building a wall
Really? REALLY...? Trump just lost re-election, it's been four fucking years, and the wall has still not been built.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN YOU BRAINWASHED BOOTLICKING RETARD!

Give it up, man.

>>5749
>Really? REALLY...? Trump just lost re-election, it's been four fucking years, and the wall has still not been built.
And who was in charge of congress and blocking his efforts during that time?

Picture it:
You're made it to the mall and the dead are in pursuit. Captain thunder-farts tells everyone to quickly block the doors and windows. The conservatives rally and start hauling shit to block all the entrances. Meanwhile the liberals are screaming "WHAT ABOUT DAVE!".

Dave is running mere feet ahead of the horde, there won't be enough time to block the doors if you keep them open for him. The conservatives realise this but the liberals resist, they want to save Dave, so they start blocking the conservatives from erecting the barricades. Dave makes it, and now the place is swarming with zeds.

There's now only a handful of people left, trapped in a solitary store room behind a door, soy-boy-liberal-cuck-14 looks through the window and sees the deceased Dave on the other side looking gormless and hungry... the door opens, "Dave I missed you, come on in" as the horde swarms over him...

>>5750
There's no politics during the apocalypse, you retard.

>>5762
Don't look at me, >>5749 brought it up.

>>5750
>The GOP controlled 3.5 out of 4 of the branches of government and still couldn't find a way to do anything
If there had been one liberal in Nebraska who voted against you, they'd still be screaming obstructionism. You idiots have literally been raped up the ass and then believe the rapist when he claims it's the fault of someone else.

>>5766
I think you're getting off-topic soy-boy.

We're talking zombie apocalypse. Building a wall is a fundamental way to protect yourself from a zombie attack.

The merits of a haphazard and flawed wall being rapidly constructed to keep the zombies and straggling survivors at bay is preferable to delaying the erection of a barrier in order to ensure your fellow cuck is inside as the delay may result in a zombie incursion. At least in the short term...

>>5767
How fast can you build a wall, dumb shit? Do you even have the slightest fucking clue, or are you just going to assume that because you're not a "soy-boy" or a "cuck" that you can manage to just toss a fucking pile of rocks together in a half-hour and that'll keep the zeds out.

First you need materials. Bricks/blocks/rocks and some kind of mortar. Most likely you don't have any of that shit where you are, and when SHTF you probably aren't going to have time to run to Home Fucking Depot and pick up the materials. To say nothing of the time to actually build it (hours) and time for the mortar to set so it can't just be pushed over (days). No, you can't just pile it up because the angle of repose of whatever you pile is going to be so shallow it can be crawled up like a ramp.

Second, do you even have the mathematical sense to understand the scale going on here? If you wanted to make a brick wall 8 feet high so a zed can't simply climb it, you're looking at about a ton of material per every ten feet. A wall ten feet long isn't going to do you a damn thing; the zeds can walk around it. You'll have to wall AROUND an area, like a house, which is going to be a perimeter of like 200 feet. So we're talking SEMI-TRUCKS worth of material, and weeks of construction time.

Seriously how could you not realize this?? If you wanted to make a foot-tall retaining wall for a fucking 5x5 garden you need a half-pallet of bricks and like five bags of mortar mix. Not to mention the SHTF so probably the water has been shut off, so you CAN'T EVEN MAKE THE MORTAR (or concrete)! And that'd still take you a day.

Seriously. This is your "short-term" plan? To turtle in place and "build a wall" when you have no idea how...? You'll be eaten by nightfall the first day.

Oh, and by the way, any wall is ineffective depending on the scale of the zombie hoard. If there are a LOT of them (and in what scenario are there only a few) they'll simply pile alongside the wall and crawl over each other until they reach the top, like the bugs in Starship Troopers. And now YOU are the one trapped behind the wall, ironic.

And you suggest you'll outlive those damn soy-boys with their stupid math and intelligence and strategy because... what? You're a badass? You have chutzpah? You're not a liberal therefore you win?? What a complete joke.


You want my advice: in the short term you RUN. Get away from population centers and find a place that ALREADY HAS a wall. And if you're still being pursued by zeds, whether poor Dave is still outside or not, you haven't run far enough. "Holing up" anywhere, when you're surrounded by immortal hungry predators is just extending your suffering.

>>4186
>I don't have any argument so I'll just post neckbeards

>>5770
Wow your butt is hurt!

>>5775
It took you almost an entire month. Is that the best you can do?

>>5776
>It took you almost an entire month. Is that the best you can do?
Could no doubt do have done better but it's been a long month and you forget, this board is /zom/ and practically (un)deadly as is. The only reason I saw and respond to your post is because I spotted >>5574 on the front page.

But back on topic:

Did you even read what I wrote:
>The merits of a haphazard and flawed wall being rapidly constructed to keep the zombies and straggling survivors at bay is preferable to delaying the erection of a barrier
> At least in the short term...
We're not talking about a wall to stand the test of time here boy, we're talking about one that will maybe stand the night. Say you've made it outside of town and the only place nearby is an empty gas station. The doors been left open and the display windows smashed, you don't have any way to lock it or replace the pane, are you just going to leave that shit unlocked overnight? No, you barricade the door and window with anything on hand to keep any potential threats out. That's the kind of proverbial wall I'm talking about. What you're counter-proposing is you're either going to go off wandering in the dark or not going to bother fortifying your position because "if I can't do it right what's the point", which is, ironically, the wrong way of thinking.

The only time you even consider building a permanent wall is when you've found somewhere quiet, isolated and settle-worthy. And even then, you'll erect a temporary wall whilst you're building your permanent one. Of course, you also have to be able to bug-out in a heart - beat.

Feel better now you got a fuller response?

>>5777
>We're not talking about a wall to stand the test of time here boy
>boy
I'm not going to let you continue to condescend to me after I unleashed a metaphorical slaughter of knowledge and experience on your retard LARPing ass.

Enjoy your (un)dead board by yourself.

>>5778
>I'm not going to let you continue to condescend to me after I unleashed a metaphorical slaughter of knowledge and experience on your retard LARPing ass.
Dude, this whole boards a larp. If you're telling me you believe otherwise and that zombies are real then me calling you boy is not out of touch.

The Marines easily slaughter the knights with their guns and drone strike the survivors and their families. However, it would be a pyrrhic victory as the Marines would die from biological contamination of long extinct viruses that have no cure.

Crusaders. Here's why.

>No reliance on modern luxuries like gps and electricity
>Knew basic survival skills like foraging, preserving, hunting, and cooking
>Comparatively easier repairing method to guns
>Often carried spears
>Robust immune system
>Came with both a vehicle and emergency food source
>Weren't retarded

>>4119
Crusaders because they have the help of God.
Oh, and also lances wich don't require ammunitions.
Oh, and also horses wich are always an advantage.
Oh, and also armors.
Oh, and also some of them might have shields.