If I ever start believing in Zombies, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy or Reptoids (Retillians) I will have an answer for you.

 

I don't understand the question.
Are we using euphemisms?

 

One of each so long as they dont talk to much.

 

I also don't understand the question. I'll vote for the PH. (With 5 or 6 decades of PH experience)

 

I am going to go with video game players. They are used to shooting zombies.

 

My understanding was unless we're specifically denoting that the zombies are like undead creatures- zombie or "zommie" is sometimes code for liberal (commie) city dwellers descending in the rest of the world when things go tits up.

As far as OP question goes- it really depends on the AO. There's a large spectrum of capability represented by the groups mentioned.

I'd say no to the average hunter, competition shooter or even Leo. Tactics and position would be key. Static defenses that work alongside topography etc requires some knowledge and experience to setup static defenses and functional fighting positions. Running patrols from your outpost is more inline with veteran skillsets imo- though honestly the Vietnam/African theater guys are getting up there in years they'll probably be taking on leadership roles and directing other groups on what to do. Some of the afghan guys are probably still good to go and might be squad leaders or in charge of things closer to the fight.

If we are talking undead zombies like movie zombies then idk.

 

If we're talking zombies...

Whomever can best place a copper projectile right betwixt the eyeballs

I'm not planning on running and gunning. I'll find me a perch and cut loose when the time arrives

 

That's what always messes me up about the zombie thing- it's like anatomy gets put on hold cause they can't bleed out or freeze. Why waste a bullet on a zombie? I feel like you could kill alot of them with a cheap treestand and a long pointy stick. I mean unless they are the tree climbing zombies too... thats what makes the situation hard to talk about imo- we never define what a zombie is capable of or even if it's realistic. If there was some sort of a virus that put people into a face eating bathsalt rage- OK fine but that means that body shots, dehydration and exposure to elements kind of prevent them from ever becoming a widespread issue.

Idk...

 

one that realizes he's not in a combat zone with a bunch of sacrificial 18yr old recruits - the "troops" are loved ones that are willing to die to protect their loved ones >>> but not willing to die so some grunt can relive his Hamburger Hill younghood .....

 

I'd like to go into that scenario with @Disturbed70 , @justanothergunnut , @Canon29 , @PSYOP Soldier , @Aceoky ,@Weedinhoe , @wilderness bushman, @2ftgd and a few others. I think we'd be a pretty formidable, group with a lot of complimenting skill sets. Plus we'd have super interesting conversations in our down time 😁.

 

Don't forget my boy @suni

 

What kind of zombies? Slow ones like in the Walking Dead or fast one like in World War Z?

 

The "average" anything is probably not going to be a net positive. That said, it's probably what most are going to have to work with.

As funny as the zombie trope is, it's one of the metrics we considered (not really zombies - just a fearless, unending horde), when building the BOL, and setting up defenses.

 

The "average" anything is probably not going to be a net positive. That said, it's probably what most are going to have to work with.

As funny as the zombie trope is, it's one of the metrics we considered (not really zombies - just a fearless, unending horde), when building the BOL, and setting up defenses.

Very true. My neighbors are the exact opposite of combat effective. And that's who I'm stuck with. Everything about that kind of scenario is totally hypothetical, so it's really hard to gauge the ebb and flow of how it might play out. S***, day two might be a gigantic wildfire that burns your AO to the ground. Either way ya work with what you got.

 

Interesting to think about. The term ”outpost” gives me a FOB vibe. Personally I’d like a good mix. Different kinds of bring different skills and disciplines. I’d like about 20% <50 yo, healthy infantry, LEO types. 20% tradesmen of all types. 40% average blue collar working types who just know how to reliably wake up, show up, work a long day. 10% techno-geeks who can figure out how to fly drones, use computers, network, radios, etc. 5% medical professionals, 5% ag and food specialists. Everyone would need some minimum small arms training to ensure that everyone was capable of mounting an offense/defense if needed.

 

... Everyone would need some minimum small arms training to ensure that everyone was capable of mounting an offense/defense if needed.

AND not shoot themselves nor family.

AND not do other indirect silly things which could more likely get themselves & family killed.

Relax. Slow down. Don't bebop around like its a game.

 

I would rather focus on folks who are determined, focused, physically and mentally fit, and with excellent critical thinking skills. Just because someone has hunted all their lives or who has seen combat doesn’t necessarily make them an asset for whatever scenario in mind. Those life experiences are certainly very useful in people with the attributes I list above, but not necessarily sufficient by themselves. IMHO.

 

I would think a broad list of skills and experience would be best. Construction and mechanical types, medical, shooters (vets, cops, hunters, or just really knowledgeable types), even teachers (if long term), people familiar with canning, farming, and such.

I don't think a group that is solely just shooter types will last long term if they don't have enough knowledge on basic daily needs to live.

Depending on the zombie situation I guess. If it is a long term rebuild of society then a vast pool of skills will be needed.

 

I think everyone has pretty much hit it on the head. From a longterm survival standpoint, you need more than just one "type."

Speaking for my group, we have a vast array of professions represented - everything from mechanics to attorneys, from machinists to nurses, from paramedics to doctors, from cops to military, from accountants to hvac guys, from CDL owner/operators to construction guys, from teachers to midwives, from electricians to engineers. Everyone has to have a base skill level with firearms, but those tasked with security as their specialty are held to a much higher standard. Just like every adult is at least an EMT-B, but the medical crew are much more educated/experienced at that stuff. Nobody can be good at everything, and having people that are experts while everyone else has a cursory knowledge is about as good as it gets. God willing, nobody outside of the Security Team will ever need to use their defensive skills, but they do have them.

 

Id say the combat vets if they arent suffering from PTSD .Next cops that are from SWAT and have shot "zombies" . Cartel gunmen would be a usable bunch if they were on your side. Then hunters or farmers that have killed things.

 

I’ll go with the euphemism perspective. I too think of an “outpost” as I would a FOB. I would say about 80% are logistics, trades/support, med, communications, are usually what you find on a FOB with a much smaller percentage who go outside the wire/walls for various operations. That doesn’t mean that 80% can’t be trained to defend the base or pull scheduled security, but the actual number of snake eaters and door kickers is relatively small.

This is where I can appreciate “diversity”. Group think can be dangerous without some guardrails; however, the group needs to have some common ideological views and respect the groups bylaws and have respect for the leadership in order to make it work long time. Sure, I too would like everyone to be physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually “fit”. But life is never that easy. As long as members aren’t addicts, lack discipline or a good work ethic, aren’t team-players, and can be counted on at least being loyal, honest, and trustworthy…I would call that more than adequate.

My son and I discussed something similar regarding “skills”. He’s a LEO and SWAT officer as well as an Infantry Officer (National Guard, mobilized right now). Very different missions and skills. The Infantry side of him said combat operations are best suited to the military training, but when you get into more detailed urban “fighting”, his SWAT training is vastly superior to his light Infantry urban warfare training. He also gets much more trigger time in SWAT than he gets in the Infantry (while mobilized), and accuracy shows the advantage.

Also, many of veterans are not combat-experienced; most have their specialty skills experience in a combat zone, but not the fighting skills associated with combat-operations. I do like the concept as anything “outside the wire” is a combat environment; it forces a different mentality when operating safely behind the outpost/FOB walls. What is needed are a handful of experienced, skilled members capable of training others in tactics.

ROCK6

 

Yeppers, 🤔 Delta, Green Beret , Marine Cap plts from Vietnam now called Marsoc , renamed from Meusoc.

 

Having recruited and ran assessments for different teams, character and mental toughness are the most important. Just because someone wears the patch or beret doesn't mean that they'll be there when you need them most. In alot of cases they are the first to be gone.

Mission essential tasks are easily trained when you've recruited the right person, character is not.

 

Having recruited and ran assessments for different teams, character and mental toughness are the most important. Just because someone wears the patch or beret doesn't mean that they'll be there when you need them most. In alot of cases they are the first to be gone.

Mission essential tasks are easily trained when you've recruited the right person, character is not.

Man I got to disagree. In order to rise to the level of any special forces group you're going to have to have demonstrated some serious dedication, tenacity and the ability to work well with others. Other than actual combat, I don't think there's a better way to confirm those traits then what the special forces do.

I'm not saying they're going to be angels. They're trained to kill people and break stuff. They're definitely going to be dependable and team players though.

 

Since I’m in the overwatch crowd I’ll man the comms with my .35 REM.

 

I know dudes from Tier One units that have major substance abuse issues and who are womanizers. Larry Vickers is an example of what people shouldn't be (not talking about his conviction). However, every single one of them has been someone that had no idea what "quit" means. You don't make it through any of the selections if you can't embrace the suck.

 

And the guys I know display absolute solidarity to the people they served with, even decades later.

 

I'm not casting dispersions on anyone or organization. I've trained and deployed with most units people are familiar with. I've seen great teams, and really bad ones. I could go on for days but I wont. The point is, me personally I will always seek individual character before I ever trust a certain group or individuals credentials.

You don't have to be specialforcesninjanavysealranger to be squared away. Most of the best guys I ever worked with were something else before they went to the schools. If they were ****birds before they went to the school, they were ****birds when they came out.

My dad who the most hard worker, most mentally tough, get things done person I ever met was a coal miner since he was 15. The two other toughest, best guys I ever deployed with, one was a bronc rider every weekend when we weren't working, the other was an ugly skinny redhead guy that did three times the work of anyone in the unit. None of them had the cool guy patches but were the most reliable persons I've ever met, and on the flip side some of the least reliable were cool patch guys I wouldn't **** on.

 

Folks there are far too many instances of members trying to bypass the language filter, do not do this, it will get you infractions/bans. Simply type the word(s) out as they are the filter will do the rest.

 

And just to reinforce what he's saying......

The mods can even read other languages too.

Ask me how I know

 

Nobody here is saying you have to be SOF to matter and be squared away. What people are saying is, all other things being equal, a sample of people who have gone through a qualification process that requires physical endurance, mental endurance, courage and steadfastness are more likely to have physical endurance, mental endurance, courage and steadfastness than a random sample of people who haven’t gone through a similar vetting process.

The whole purpose of the original question is a curiosity about certain groups, professions, or common shared experiences that might make someone indicative of being suitable for a survival team.

It just so happens there aren’t as many comparable civilian vetting processes. Once upon a time going to college showed a similar commitment to mental endurance, but not anymore. Successful participation in certain sports shows a commitment to physical endurance. Perhaps being a long term missionary is indicative.

So, yes if you want to trust your life and livelihood to people you should look at individuals but I think the point of the question was are there certain parts of society that create experiences that really lend themselves well to SHTF roles.

I stand by my previous points.

Interesting to think about. The term ”outpost” gives me a FOB vibe. Personally I’d like a good mix. Different kinds of bring different skills and disciplines. I’d like about 20% <50 yo, healthy infantry, LEO types. 20% tradesmen of all types. 40% average blue collar working types who just know how to reliably wake up, show up, work a long day. 10% techno-geeks who can figure out how to fly drones, use computers, network, radios, etc. 5% medical professionals, 5% ag and food specialists. Everyone would need some minimum small arms training to ensure that everyone was capable of mounting an offense/defense if needed.

I'm not casting dispersions on anyone or organization. I've trained and deployed with most units people are familiar with. I've seen great teams, and really bad ones. I could go on for days but I wont. The point is, me personally I will always seek individual character before I ever trust a certain group or individuals credentials.

You don't have to be specialforcesninjanavysealranger to be squared away. Most of the best guys I ever worked with were something else before they went to the schools. If they were ****birds before they went to the school, they were ****birds when they came out.

My dad who the most hard worker, most mentally tough, get things done person I ever met was a coal miner since he was 15. The two other toughest, best guys I ever deployed with, one was a bronc rider every weekend when we weren't working, the other was an ugly skinny redhead guy that did three times the work of anyone in the unit. None of them had the cool guy patches but were the most reliable persons I've ever met, and on the flip side some of the least reliable were cool patch guys I wouldn't **** on.

 

Zombie is a another name for enemy in my books.

 

Zombie, in my mind, is anyone wanting to do us harm.

Works well in training /discussions by removing any question of "humanity" from whatever situation.

I remember an early on training session with now a good friend, shortly after getting our CHL's. Ran my handgun dry (no reload-handnt been instructed to) at an life size V-Tac which he would also "dress" in jackets / hats.

He got up on my ear drill instructer like "ZOMIBIE IS STILL A THREAT! ELIMINATE THE THREAT" - I didn't know what I was supposed to do, so placed my slidelockec handgun on the counter & pretty much froze.

Well he pretty much lost his schnitzel & threw my (cleared / empty) handgun AT THE TARGET. Then ran the few yards to it & kicked the schnitzel out of it. All the while screaming "ZOMBIE IS STILL A THREAT! ELIMINATE THE THREAT!"...

I don't recall freezing since. Maybe I have. Have made poorer choices (safe firearms wise) - just not "best" - survival wise. However made choices & acted.

 

Yeah, it’s interesting that people want to define their zombie. In the end, you can’t determine your adversary. Even with intelligence to helps you understand the capabilities of your adversary, there are always so many unknowns. If you want to be prepared for the unknown, I think it’s good to just assume there is a very broad spectrum of zombies that can only be defined by a few characteristics.They are humanoid, they are mortal, they have potential to be dangerous, they must obey the laws of physics. Beyond that you may not understand or predict their capabilities, level of intelligence, maturity, fitness, health, motivations, desires, strengths, weaknesses, ability to adapt, level of technology, etc.