In that case, I suppose it's a race between aircraft and these tanks to see what the most resource-efficient method of putting high-explosives into zombies is. I'm willing to bet it's the aircraft.

@KEY_ABRADE I'm not a military expert, but from a quick Google search, it looks like artillery has been called both the king and queen of the battlefield, with the former seeming to be more recent and the latter seeming to date back to Napoleon.

I agree, though with one condition : That zombies can be killed as easily as humans, which is not necessarily implied by the asker. Some kind of zombies are resistant to all damage excepted beheading or a strong hit in the head, which is not the strongest suit of explosives. Perhaps blast-based explosive instead of shrapnels would be better, I don't know.

@Tortliena I don't really want to wind up on a government watch list for looking up artillery shell fatality blast radii, but IIRC I've read that the effects of a nearby artillery shell on a human body can be described as "chunky salsa".

@nick012000 At very short range (<10m), absolutely ^^. Just thought that you might change the usual shrapnel charges to be High-Explosive to increase the range, if the zombies need to be killed by taking off their head.

Bombs are not more resource-efficient than bullets. Simple bomb: $300. (see answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_US_military_bomb_cost) Rifle bullet: 10 cents (see midsouthshooterssupply.com/dept/reloading/rifle-bullets). You could shoot 3000 bullets for the price of 1 bomb. Even if only one in ten bullets hits, you're still killing a lot more zombies than could realistically be killed with one bomb.

Why bother with the artillery? Just a barrel of explosives and a speaker. Place it on a pedestal with a claymore-like ring and you can maximise the amount of shrapnel at chest/neck/headheight and be more efficient. Clearly marked minefields would deter humans but not zombies, even a simple speaker warning humans that a minefield is imminent would help attract prey. Artillery shells would deploy parachutes high up, then blast sound through speakers to attract zombies to maximise damage when it finally reaches an altitude to detonate.

@causative that is a 220kg bomb you are comparing with bullets. That bomb is a danger to zombies up to 98m distance, although the guaranteed kill radius is smaller. With simple luring devices (say a windvane that powers a rattle) you can kill many many more zombies with a single bomb than with 3000 bullets and for lower risk.

@Demigan Yeah I think you're right, if the zombies are that dumb.

@causative considering the OP seems to be inspired by the WorldWarZ and mentions that chain swarms caused by loud noises are a thing it seems to be these zombies are of the easily lured variety. With the hyper agressiveness and speed they have they would also get many zombies in the area quickly, and easily trigger some short-delay fuses to make sure some more zombies arrive.

Aren't most of the guaranteed kills out side a very small radius cause by fragmentation not concussion ? Assuming the zombies need brain destruciton/damage to take out, bombs might be highly inefficient, schrapnel is known to this day, for his invention of this for taking out personnel.

@causative bullet can be as cheap as 10 cents, yes, but you'll need a full cartridge to be able to fire it.

@EricBrown-Cal true, but assuming these zombies don't heal, bombs play well into a different answer: just let em be. And if that bomb only kills 10%, but breaks enough bones from the rest, these zombies can't really move again, so they will never leave the wasteland and be a threat to civilization, eventually they will decay. The only danger they pose is leaving the wasteland as a big swarm, and breaking their bones prevents this effectively enough

If you want a cheap, anti-personal 'bomb'... I'd definitely look towards Napalm.

@NPSF3000 Zombies probably won't be incapacitated by the pain of burns the way humans will.

@nick012000 sure, that's why I said napalm and not a cup of hot water. "Napalm burns at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1,200 °C (1,470 to 2,190 °F). In addition, it burns for a greater duration than gasoline, as well as being more easily dispersed and sticking tenaciously to its targets."

@causative bullets are a lot cheaper than bombs, but not that much cheaper. The link you suggested was for .22 cal bullets which are very inaccurate and not powerful. Most military rifles use 5.56 ammo, which right now can be bought for about 50 cents per round at the cheapest, and that's including less accurate ammo that might gum up your gun. So for a $300 bomb you're actually comparing to ~600 rounds.

... And, being able to kill a separate zombie with one out of every 10 bullets seems like a stretch to me as well, except maybe in close quarters combat, which would be quite a bit more dangerous for the troops assigned to this than dropping bombs.

@Cullub about that marksmanship claim. The zombies don't know to take cover, and you don't have to lay down suppressing fire, so the bullets-per-kill could be very low, perhaps less than 10. It's basically target practice, or hunting. The fact that zombies move makes it a little harder, but they aren't deliberately trying to dodge, they're just running at you. Or just futilely milling about at close range, if they can't get to you because you're in an armored position.

@nick012000: Incapacitated, no; incinerated, yes.

Bombs won't be too effective against zombies that need a brain kill. They won't bleed out from shrapnel, they won't be impaired by blast lung.

The reason artillery is king is because of it's range. Zombies don't shoot back, you don't need a long engagement range. What you need is semi-automatic rifles and a shooting platform that can move faster than the zombies.