Re: [討論]沒路用的軍方
其實這情節可參考
http://goo.gl/dvZWl
http://goo.gl/PgtnO
軍方火力強大歸強大,但在掃蕩時只是在浪費彈藥,並沒有精確射擊殺死僵屍,
導致彈盡援絕無火力可用,僵屍本身就是武器再加上數量龐大,最後CQB的結果
軍隊鐵定兵敗如山倒
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.132.114.222
推
12/02 14:02, , 1F
12/02 14:02, 1F
僵屍數量多...軍方火力一消耗完沒有後勤補充就沒救了...
→
12/02 14:03, , 2F
12/02 14:03, 2F
→
12/02 14:04, , 3F
12/02 14:04, 3F
50機槍除非裝精密瞄準器,不然掃下下去對人類肢體傷害大,但要爆頭
不論對人類或僵屍困難度都很高,還是單發射擊手動上膛或是半自動的
7.62步槍比較能精確射擊僵屍頭部。
※ 編輯: skyhawkptt 來自: 220.132.114.222 (12/02 14:27)
推
12/02 14:36, , 4F
12/02 14:36, 4F
→
12/02 14:39, , 5F
12/02 14:39, 5F
→
12/02 14:40, , 6F
12/02 14:40, 6F
→
12/02 14:41, , 7F
12/02 14:41, 7F
→
12/02 14:42, , 8F
12/02 14:42, 8F
推
12/02 14:48, , 9F
12/02 14:48, 9F
推
12/02 15:07, , 10F
12/02 15:07, 10F
→
12/02 15:09, , 11F
12/02 15:09, 11F
請不要把50機槍火力想像的跟A-10的機砲一樣太美好,首先軍方彈藥有限,其次槍管打個
三五百發一定得換,再來50機槍配置不多...軍人不是人人士藍波人手一支,殭屍海打前
面倒後面跟著補上來,軍方火力遲早會耗完,沒殺死的僵屍又會新增數量。
※ 編輯: skyhawkptt 來自: 220.132.114.222 (12/02 15:24)
推
12/02 15:19, , 12F
12/02 15:19, 12F
→
12/02 15:20, , 13F
12/02 15:20, 13F
推
12/02 15:25, , 14F
12/02 15:25, 14F
→
12/02 15:25, , 15F
12/02 15:25, 15F
推
12/02 15:29, , 16F
12/02 15:29, 16F
→
12/02 15:29, , 17F
12/02 15:29, 17F
推
12/02 15:35, , 18F
12/02 15:35, 18F
→
12/02 15:57, , 19F
12/02 15:57, 19F
→
12/02 15:57, , 20F
12/02 15:57, 20F
推
12/02 16:03, , 21F
12/02 16:03, 21F
→
12/02 16:03, , 22F
12/02 16:03, 22F
→
12/02 16:04, , 23F
12/02 16:04, 23F
推
12/02 17:47, , 24F
12/02 17:47, 24F
推
12/02 18:04, , 25F
12/02 18:04, 25F
→
12/02 18:04, , 26F
12/02 18:04, 26F
→
12/02 18:07, , 27F
12/02 18:07, 27F
推
12/02 19:16, , 28F
12/02 19:16, 28F
推
12/02 19:57, , 29F
12/02 19:57, 29F
→
12/02 19:57, , 30F
12/02 19:57, 30F
→
12/02 19:58, , 31F
12/02 19:58, 31F
推
12/02 20:07, , 32F
12/02 20:07, 32F
推
12/02 20:09, , 33F
12/02 20:09, 33F
→
12/02 20:24, , 34F
12/02 20:24, 34F
→
12/02 20:25, , 35F
12/02 20:25, 35F
→
12/02 20:25, , 36F
12/02 20:25, 36F
→
12/02 20:27, , 37F
12/02 20:27, 37F
→
12/02 20:28, , 38F
12/02 20:28, 38F
→
12/02 20:28, , 39F
12/02 20:28, 39F
推
12/02 20:33, , 40F
12/02 20:33, 40F
→
12/02 20:34, , 41F
12/02 20:34, 41F
→
12/02 20:36, , 42F
12/02 20:36, 42F
→
12/02 20:37, , 43F
12/02 20:37, 43F
→
12/02 20:38, , 44F
12/02 20:38, 44F
推
12/02 20:49, , 45F
12/02 20:49, 45F
→
12/02 20:50, , 46F
12/02 20:50, 46F
→
12/02 20:50, , 47F
12/02 20:50, 47F
→
12/02 20:51, , 48F
12/02 20:51, 48F
→
12/02 20:52, , 49F
12/02 20:52, 49F
→
12/02 20:54, , 50F
12/02 20:54, 50F
推
12/02 20:55, , 51F
12/02 20:55, 51F
→
12/02 20:55, , 52F
12/02 20:55, 52F
→
12/02 20:55, , 53F
12/02 20:55, 53F
→
12/02 20:56, , 54F
12/02 20:56, 54F
→
12/02 20:57, , 55F
12/02 20:57, 55F
推
12/02 20:58, , 56F
12/02 20:58, 56F
→
12/02 21:01, , 57F
12/02 21:01, 57F
→
12/02 21:03, , 58F
12/02 21:03, 58F
→
12/02 21:03, , 59F
12/02 21:03, 59F
→
12/02 21:04, , 60F
12/02 21:04, 60F
推
12/02 23:16, , 61F
12/02 23:16, 61F
→
12/02 23:16, , 62F
12/02 23:16, 62F
推
12/03 00:06, , 63F
12/03 00:06, 63F
→
12/03 00:07, , 64F
12/03 00:07, 64F
推
12/03 00:18, , 65F
12/03 00:18, 65F
推
12/03 04:58, , 66F
12/03 04:58, 66F
→
12/03 04:59, , 67F
12/03 04:59, 67F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文:
討論
10
44
完整討論串 (本文為第 6 之 24 篇):
討論
9
22
討論
2
3
討論
2
12
討論
9
15
討論
7
10
討論
23
67
討論
5
13
討論
10
44
討論
7
15
討論
11
25