Maybe because the Germans didn't keep coming with no regard to personal safety. There's a reason America lost Vietnam, because they came at us with no regard for personal safety, and overwhelmed us with near equal if not slightly more numbers in most cases. Zombies don't fall when you shoot them in the leg, they don't stop for a wounded comrade, they don't fear, they don't think, they just attack as a solid hive mind of destruction, and most importantly... Zombies don't really exist, so my explanation is pointless
@Oreobunbun, don't quote me on that Vietnam bit, I don't actually remember much from the history of the Vietnam war
@Oreobunbun, America didn't "lose" vietnam, it's more like we got tired of playing that game, and went home. We won every battle in the war, practically speaking, but we didn't have thr stones to stick it out, mostly because it was an ugly war
@Oreobunbun, there still is the shuffling and lack of intelligence necessary for complex tunnels and traps.
@The Necromancer, could say the same thing if your British about the revolutionary war.
@Oreobunbun, Vietnam isn't classified as an American war. It was a "UN conflict" where America urged the UN to go in and donated over 9/10 of the troops and equipment.
@Oreobunbun, Yes, but the Vietnamese also had both guns and intelligence.
@The Necromancer, we didn't win every battle. Tet offensive. Also there weren't really battles per say. Read Phillip Caputos book on vietnam. I forgot the name of it but it's basically him telling of his 2 years in Vietnam, and this was before the war even escalated, before 500,000 troops before cambodia.
@The Necromancer, it was their civil war we should have never bothered to get involved with
@The Necromancer, every other country in the world says that America lost Vietnam... Just saying.
@Oreobunbun, I think that was the Korean War when China pushed us out of North Korea with a flood of soldiers. Their was so many the barrels of the machine guns melted. We lost veitnam because they used gorilla warfare in the jungle we weren't prepared for. The difference between the Chinese and zombies was that the Chinese ran, i think the American military would do just fine against a horde of slow shuffling zombies.
@The Necromancer, giving up is one way to lose a war. Spin it however makes you feel better.
Losing a war isn't just being conquered or killed. The Vietnamese waged guerilla warfare, the idea of which is to demoralize your enemy until they give up and leave. That's what happened. Ergo: America lost that war.
@Oreobunbun, and you could easily compare the Chinese soldiers to zombies in Vietnam. My grandfather was a flamethrower in charge of burning the villages. He saw the horrors of his entire tank unit being killed right in front of him, he literally stepped out of the tank seconds before it happened. He also said that some of the soldiers when he set them on fire would continue to charge him, he remembers vividly a soldier who he blindsided with the flamethrower and set him up in a ball of flames, the man continued to charge them as a ball of flames, face melting off he still managed to turn and shoot, killing a fellow communist soldier while burning.
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, to describe it as losing Implies that we were exausted of our capacity to fight, when in reality, we simply gave up. Yes we lost the war, but it wasn't because we lost the war. It was because we lost the will to carry on thr fight. Fighting in a foreign land against an ideology, For and against people who didn't want our "help". We would have been better off not going, absolutely.
@Oreobunbun, agreed with what's been said , no one lost the war . But two things did hurt the chances of winning , the fact that they were back by the Russians and Chinese and that America couldn't invade north Vietnam with out brining them into a direct fight. Also the American media portrayed the war very poorly and it was really the first war to ever be televised. ( as in on he tv , and media , non governmental controlled )
@Basil Fawlty, we actually won the tet offensive. The attackers gained almost no land and suffered losses near 10 to 1 but the massive scale of it shocked Americans who were being told Vietnam was close to breaking. But I'd agree we definitely lost plenty of "battles" and ultimately lost the war because the north Vietnamese government reunited the peninsula when America finally left
@Oreobunbun, *sits down and starts eating popcorn*
@Oreobunbun, the american military was hamstrung by the fact that top generals and admirals as well as politicians on both sides were invested in armament and military producing companies. Thats why the americans could not cross in cambodia especially because that would enable the drawn out process of warfare to produce more military contracts to produce more jets bombs helicopter etc. When the tet offensive happened the american troops actually beat back the north vietnamese offensive handily through shear american will and perseverance. You have to give those troops that much. But walter cronkite falsely said that they were beaten through bad intel. He later regretted that because the north vietnames were broken as well as the viet cong. But when that report came out it completely undermined any gains the military troops got and with public sentiment and deplorable conditions caused the eventual withdrawal of the americans.
@The Necromancer, that's such a typical american response
@Oreobunbun, you were pretty spot on, it also didn't help that while fighting the war, the government didn't want to actually fight the war so they sent as few troops as possible, meaning the commanders on the ground were unable to actually accomplish anything meaningful before the protest got out of hand in the US and all the politicians started worrying about being reelected instead of accomplishing something meaningful
@The Necromancer, but we didn't win every war... Most historians today count Vietnam as a loss in America's books- the Vietcong and North Vietnamese got what they were fighting for when we pulled out, ergo we lost
@The Necromancer, Losing implies that we gave up because there was no way to win that war. In reality America could have blown Vietnam to Hell and back but instead we got tired of pulling the weight for the UN.
To be fair a "realistic" zombie apocalypse would last maybe a few days, and would infect, perhaps a dozen or two people if it started from a 'patient zero' standpoint.
Even if it started out with millions of people infected, it would die off in like, what 2-3 days tops? Everything needs energy to move, and with the zombies already being dead and their digestive systems not working let alone their heart and lungs, there would be no way to keep their bodies moving.
@PB4UGAMER, and then you have things that keep them moving, like the Cordiceps genus, or doesn't actually kill the host, like the Rage virus
@PB4UGAMER, most believable zombi apocalypse: The Last of us.
@Ajunta Pall, actually rage viruses do kill the host too. It puts a lot of strain on their body which inevitably leads to them just giving out on them. Rabies is a rage virus, and very few creatures that gets infected with it survives. In all honestly a "realistic" zombie scenario would only last a week and would result in all of humanity dying, which is nothing like the romanticized versions in the movies.
@Sergei Nohomo, Rabies takes a month on average to kill
@Ajunta Pall, but, if there were a virus capable of causing a rational human to completely lose it and attack anyone on sight, it would probably put even more strain on their bodies than the normal rabies virus which would result in a much quicker death. Plus someone like that would probably be easy to spot and he would lucky to attack 3 people before some onlooker takes him out.
@Sergei Nohomo, exponential growth. 3 becomes 9, 9 becomes 27, 27 becomes 81...
@Sergei Nohomo, plus being completely at rest when no uninfected are around would lessen the strain later in the outbreak.
@Ajunta Pall, there's a book called the "The Girl with All the Gifts" whose "zombies" are infected with a kind of cordyceps fungus that affects humans. It's an interesting read and definitely an interesting twist on zombie origin.
@Duke Of SamJax, the game The Last of Us uses the same principle.
@Ajunta Pall, actually with proper treatment the victims probably won't even get infected. Biting is the least effective way of spreading a disease. And with rage viruses they usually don't get to rest even when they aren't moving. They're so hyped up that their bodies are working way higher to keep them functioning in their state of mania.
@Duke Of SamJax, talking about this is rather fun.
@Sergei Nohomo, depends on the specific method. The Rage virus from 28 Days Later causes its victims to enter a period of almost hibernating docility when no uninfected are around.
@Sergei Nohomo, they eventually die of starvation. Eventually.
@Ajunta Pall, eh, that's not how rage viruses work irl. They're kept in a constant state of adrenaline and mania that makes it basically impossible to rest. But that being said, if there were a virus like the one in 28 days where they actually rest, we'd prob been screwed.
@Sergei Nohomo, that's my point 😎
@Ajunta Pall, but another thing about zombies people don't consider is the loss of self preservation. Seriously if you just walk around all hopped up all the time completely not caring about staying alive you will definitely be killed by the environment or a wild animal.
@Sergei Nohomo, That's one advantage we would have that is always overlooked
@Sergei Nohomo, I like how we ignored the zombifying thing that actually exists in nature 😛
@Ajunta Pall, oh damn I completely forgot about that lol. That's hella creepy to read about man, poor little ants.
@ReeseBobby, and also the Joe Ledger series I've found, with Patient Zero. Sort of zombies, but not really, it was a great read
@Deanmon, sounds pretty snazzy.
@PB4UGAMER, well, what if zombies are zombies but with one vital thing shifted: they're not dead. You know how rabies infects dogs and makes them rabid and out of control? Think human rabies but on a larger scale. Then we would see some WWZ ish right there
I don't care for these
Just like with Germany they are kicking corpses some one else killed before and making a big deal about it, I'll wait for your hate right here.