A simple way to balance out slow death would be to gradually blur the players vision until they die. That way it is far more difficult to get an accurate shot off.
Upvote
0
slow death and bullet damage
- Thread starter Höck
- Start date
No, a torn muscle can not be made to work as well as un untorn muscle... but one torn muscle doesn't make all of the hundreds of other muscles in the body stop working.
I have shown stories of traumatic amputation that didn't stop the soldier from fighting back, or a pilot shot bewteen the eyes and still flying his helo safely, or a man who took an hour to saw off his own arm with a pocket knife before scaling a cliff and walking for 5 hours.
THAT is the "human spirit" being discussed here - the will to live driving the person to what APPEARS to be "superhuman" feats.
Edit:
Here is another story you might find interesting:
"During the following two days his platoon occupied an exposed position on forward slopes and was continuously under fire. Second Lieutenant Upham was blown over by one mortar shell, and painfully wounded by a piece of shrapnel behind the left shoulder, by another. He disregarded this wound and remained on duty. He also received a bullet in the foot which he later removed in Egypt."
...
"When his platoon was ordered to retire he sent it back under the platoon Serjeant and he went back to warn other troops that they were being cut off. When he came out himself he was fired on by two Germans. He fell and shammed dead, then crawled into a position and having the use of only one arm rested his rifle in the fork of a tree and as the Germans came forward he killed them both. The second to fall actually hit the muzzle of the rifle as he fell."
...
"During the whole of the operations he suffered from dysentery and was able to eat very little, in addition to being wounded and bruised."
The above quotes are from Upham's FIRST Victoria Cross citation.
"In spite of being twice wounded, once when crossing open ground swept by enemy fire to inspect his forward sections guarding our mine-fields and again when he completely destroyed an entire truck load of German soldiers with hand grenades, Captain Upham insisted on remaining with his men to take part in the final assault."
...
"Captain Upham, during the engagement, himself destroyed a German tank and several guns and vehicles with grenades and although he was shot through the elbow by a machine gun bullet and had his arm broken, he went on again to a forward position and brought back some of his men who had become isolated. He continued to dominate the situation until his men had beaten off a violent enemy counter-attack and consolidated the vital position which they had won under his inspiring leadership.
Exhausted by pain from his wound and weak from loss of blood Captain Upham was then removed to the Regimental Aid Post but immediately his wound had been dressed he returned to his men, remaining with them all day long under heavy enemy artillery and mortar fire, until he was again severely wounded and being now unable to move fell into the hands of the enemy when, his gallant Company having been reduced to only six survivors, his position was finally over-run by superior enemy forces, in spite of the outstanding gallantry and magnificent leadership shown by Captain Upham."
These quotes are from Upham's SECOND Victoria Cross citation.
I am sure if you went through the citations for VC, MoH, Iron Cross or whatever you will see the same kinds of stories over and over again.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's all fine but you must realize that the variation of "Kinetic Energy" is alot. You can say 7.62x51mm is 150gr at 2750FPS while I say it's 146gr at 2800FPS, and there will be differences. There are alot of factors into the comparison of Kinetic Energy, which really, in my opinion, is almost irrelevant - as it is more of a maximum potential factor than an actual tissue damage factor. For example, the 7.62x39mm M43 may produce 3x as much energy as 9mm, but in almost all cases of people shot with it, wound channels were comparable to jacketted Pistol rounds. (This does not apply to 7.62x39mm M67.)
Also, temporary cavity is not "mush." It is tissue that's been displaced and that resettles. Think of it as water splashing. It isn't destroyed, and it isn't damaged because most tissue is flexible enough to withstand it.
Infact, the only organ that is damaged by Temporary Cavitation is the liver, because it is very stiff. All muscle tissue and similar is not damaged by temporary cavity.
Finally, the wound profile of the 197gr FMJ bullet is not going to be very different from common Battle Rifles. It will begin to yaw at around 15-17cm, and it may produce a slightly larger permanent cavity due to the increased length in the projectile, but it's not going to be considerable. You're not going to be able to look at two corpses shot by 7.92mm and 7.62mm and tell the difference. However I will agree that it is superior - it's just that the difference is often exaggerated. If I had to choose between the two in FMJ configuration, I would go with 7.92mm, since as you've said it also has a high ballistics coefficient.
Also, just saw this video in the thread titled "Blood." Here is a link to the exact post.
Man shot with 7.62mm G3 in the legs. He's not doing too well, but if he were in battle and the enemy was still approaching, he could probably return fire with a handgun.
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=787320&postcount=82
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Enter "ballistics argument thread #482,192"
Meanwhile we're still suggesting changes to a system most of us don't even know the ins-and-outs of yet. Not even mentioning those of us who just flat out have no idea. (thinking rifle rounds to the chest will cause slow death, etc)
Meanwhile we're still suggesting changes to a system most of us don't even know the ins-and-outs of yet. Not even mentioning those of us who just flat out have no idea. (thinking rifle rounds to the chest will cause slow death, etc)
Upvote
0
I beg to differ:
The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the wound from both entrance and exit.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_topics/wound_ballistics/how_a_high-speed.html
A missile's ability to produce a temporary cavity is considered an important component in wound production and degree of destruction (Barach et al., 1986). Most researchers agree that the wounding effect of the cavitation phenomenon is only significant in velocities surpassing 1,000 feet per second (Amato et al., 1974; DeMuth, 1966). When a missile enters the body, the kinetic energy imparted on the surrounding tissues forces them forward and radially producing a temporary cavity or temporary displacement of tissues (Belkin, 1978; DeMuth, 1966; Ragsdale 1984). The temporary cavity may be considerably larger than the diameter of the bullet, and rarely lasts longer than a few milliseconds before collapsing into the permanent cavity or wound (bullet) track (Kirkpatrick, 1988). The permanent cavity, or wound track, is the defect generated when the tissues in the projectile's path are expelled from the body (Huelke and Darling, 1964). The cavitation phenomenon has been used to explain the fracturing of bone not in the direct path of a missile (Figure 1).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The thing is, ballistics have nothing to do with this argument. You can talk about wound channels etc, but the fact remains we have ABUNDANT stories of people seriously or mortally wounded fighting on after being hit.
I posted a story above of an officer who killed two Germans after his arm was hit and broken, forcing him to operate his rifle one handed. He still got two kills.
So the point is not that some wounds kill instantly and some don't, the point is the game is trying to simulate the EFFECT of some soldiers being able to fight on after being hit.
It's not a perfect representation, but no GAME could be.
In other words... confirm your kills and you'll have no problems. If you don't, that guy might just take you with him.
Upvote
0
It helps if you know my stance before declaring your disagreement. My argument is not supported by a stories of people falling forward. These stories are opposed to my my stance, not supporting it.
When you declare one stance then elucidate another, you're just pontificating two separate arguments which completely defy logic.
I'm the one saying that these stories are rare if not exaggerated. Witness accounts of an event under duress are consistently inaccurate to an extreme degree.
I'm not denying that the human body is capable of miraculous things. I'm only saying that "slow death" is awful for game play, and not a fully realistic way of representing reality.
Of course if your bone is broken, etc, the human spirit or whatever kind of chemicals going through your body at the time will not enable you to use your arm as if it wasn't broken.
When you say you're disagreeing with me, then explain a parallel argument, it makes it looks like you don't know what's going on. It's both ironic and irritating that you accuse me of not having read.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
[URL]http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal2.htm[/URL]
While the energy dump and temporary cavity schools of thought have been disproved some folks still cling to the temporary cavity theory. Perhaps the real answer lie somewhere between the two. There are many failures of both the high performance/high velocity temporary cavity loads (especially the lighter bullet weight loadings) and also the big bore/big hole loads. While general experience seems to favor the big hole loads, nothing is certain. A lot still depends on the condition of the target. And regarding the comparative virtues of various calibers, using hollowpoint ammo: it is absolutely undeniable that, while a 9mm or .40S&W may or may not expand, a .45 will never shrink.
After developing and using against living beings, loads designed to create very large temporary cavities, it's been proven that temporary cavitation is NOT a reliable way to stop a man. It may work from time to time, but is very random in it's nature.
Permanent cavities are not. Bullets that produce large temporary cavities only, fail to reliably incapacitate. Bullets that produce large permanent cavities (and also usually have same size temporary), produce vastly more reliable incapacitation.
If you choose to believe in Hydrostatic Shock theory, feel free to, but there are much better ways to gauge cartridge effectiveness than just believing in Kinetic Energy and Temporary Cavitation, both of which are very 1-dimensional ways of understanding how a bullet performs on a living target.
But I feel we are getting off-topic, and both of us can probably continue posting links to researchers of wound ballistics for days.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Here is an interesting link for two reasons:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19306_the-6-most-epic-one-man-armies-in-history-war_p2.htmlhttp://www.cracked.com/article_19306_the-6-most-epic-one-man-armies-in-history-war_p2.html
Firstly, I'd like to point out that one of the images used in that article has been credited to this forum, which I found to be quite a coincidence - it's almost like they had us in mind when they wrote it
Secondly, stories such as these are NOT that rare. Hell, half the medal citations given out in war probably include the words "despite serious wounds".
Would you say that metals are given away frequently? I wouldn't, at least not valor or honor metals. It of course differs with every branch, but usually an act done "despite major wounds" is the merit for one of the aforementioned metals. Ok, now take half of those metals. So already we have an infrequent metal being given away, and we take away half. Now think about half the people getting those kinds of metals against how many people are fighting in the war entirely.
He had been trapped for hours already with a crushed arm. The limb was already effectively dead. It would be the same as cutting off a limb, that was completely frostbitten. The flesh is frozen and dead. The circumstances between that and getting shot are different circumstances entirely.
I will concede that this is a good point. I'd still argue that it doesn't happen with enough frequency that it would merit a game play feature, which could unbalance game play.
To reestablish my stance, I'm not completely against the slow death, but only that I felt it needed to be changed from how I saw it represented. The time is too long, the control is too great. If you have a rifle and you shoot someone in the gut, they're going to be able to instantly return fire, and if they have an SMG, you're almost surely dead. This goes along with why I put this in the "ideas and suggestions" department. I think a stun, or a stutter would be better. I'm sure just as I concede that you have good points with the seconds away from being incapacitated, you'd agree that if you're shot in the stomach, you're not going to be able to stand there almost unaffected and return accurate fire, as if nothing had happened. This would give a riflemen chance to bolt and fire again if they are in close range.
I agree. It doesn't serve a good purpose to have people limp around the entire game, because it would be easier just to die. Again, I'm not completely against the idea. It's the execution that I don't like. In its current state, I'd rather have it be removed completely than implemented as is. That doesn't mean I'd like to see it stay in some modified form.
Many people seem to want to put words in my mouth and say everyone should die in one shot. To reiterate, that's not what I'm saying at all. I feel the thread has gone off the ropes into ballistics and human spirit vs. the limitations of the human body.
My views are not as extreme. My concern, once again, was that it would unbalance the game in favor of those who have smgs, to those who are "stuck" or prefer the riflemen class.
If I stab someone in the back with a bayonet are they going to "slow die" too? Only to, without hesitation, turn around and shoot me?
Upvote
0
I think the slow death is a good idea. I've read many accounts of this kind of thing happening. One example is where an SAS soldier in Afghanistan who was in a cqb contact with Taliban fighters came up on on enemy and fired 3 bullets through his chest, the fighter turned around and lifted his rifle about to fire, before another soldier put a bullet through his head which did drop him. Granted these were 5.56mm rounds and not larger rounds, the wounds from the 3 rounds to the chest would likely have caused him to collapse or die very shortly afterwards but he was still able to fight back. Another example was a militiaman in East Timor being shot multiple times in the chest, getting up and running away with his comrades around a corner, keeping pace with them also sprinting, before dropping dead about 100m down the road.
I think there's enough evidence out there to justify the feature in the game, as long as it doesn't happen every time and that hopefully aiming will be harder, recoil greater (like exaggerated suppression effects perhaps) etc.
I think there's enough evidence out there to justify the feature in the game, as long as it doesn't happen every time and that hopefully aiming will be harder, recoil greater (like exaggerated suppression effects perhaps) etc.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Again though, as is the case with the 12.8 g (198 gr) 7.92mm vs the 9.5 g (147 gr) 7.62mm Type L, there will be an even more marked difference as range increases due to the heavier and more streamlined bullets' large advantage in speed retention.
The wartime 7.92mm Kurz load was a 8.1 g (125 gr) S.m.E. pointed projectile with a tapered base (boat tail), which started out with a muzzle velocity of 685 m/s. By comparison the wartime .30 Carbine load was a 7.1 g (110 gr) round nose projectile with a flat base, which started out with a muzzle velocity of 580 m/s. So not only does the 7.92mm Kurz start out with a noticably higher amount of energy, the difference also increases in its favor the longer away the target was.
For this reason I do not believe that the 7.92mm Kurz and .30 Carbine can be compared. The 7.92mm Kurz and 7.62mm M43 behave largely the same, whilst the .30 Carbine is in a class of its own, being somewhere in between the 7.92mm Kurz / 7.62mm M43 and a std. pistol round.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Except that 7.62x39mm M43 performs like a Pistol round within the average torso width of a human being. Wounding potential is considered inferior to .30 Carbine since atleast .30 Carbine FMJ will yaw. Now, 7.62x39mm M67, that is a different story, and 7.92mm Kurz itself *could* be but there is very limited details on what it does in tissue.
Of course... I am disregarding what a 7.62x39mm M43 will do if it strikes bone, at which point, it would do much more damage than a 9mm, or .30 Carbine for that matter, striking said bone. And that fact, that I am disregarding what these bullets do to bone, is the flaw of some of my arguments, since when a bullet strikes bone Kinetic Energy has a LOT more play in the amount of damage that occurs. So I should say that... most of what I am discussing is with bullets that strike their targets and pass through strictly tissue. When it comes to striking bone, which I shouldn't ignore since it can and does happen, the differences in Kinetic Energy become more obvious.
So, Unus, I do agree that both types of 7.92mm rounds would be superior in accuracy and downrange power compared to the respective cartridges we are discussing. I also feel that within shorter ranges (<200 yards), they would perform largely similar (albeit still slightly superior) to same said respective cartridges.
More on topic: I read once that the RO devs have implemented more "hit regoins" to the game, such as vital organs - for example, shooting a target dead center (hitting central nervous system) will kill instantly, while shooting someone on the sides of their torso may trigger randomly a "slow death." This is, again, for example. I'm not stating that is the way the game will work, but I do know that the RO devs have stated that, with the inclusion of Slow Death in certain parts of the body, there is also more areas that will trigger Instant Death, with even say a 9mm to the right spot.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Slow death is probably tied to Tripwire's desire for an individual bandaging feature too, a feature which I thought was much too lenient when it was first revealed. Anything "incapacitating" would most often require another soldier's medical help, but medical assistance in-game just wasn't going to be considered:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=46036&highlight=bandages
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=46036&highlight=bandages
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There are ofcourse differences between the 7.92mm Kurz & 7.62mm M43 round when it comes to terminal ballistics. The 8.1 g 7.92mm S.m.E. 43 features a steel core for example, so it won't deform as much when striking tissue as a round with a pure lead core, but it will penetrate more material, esp. hard material such as brick or stone masonry, or metal. As for how much the 7.92mm S.m.E. will yaw when it enters flesh, I have no idea. It's the shockwave that does the most damage, shredding tissue surrounding the path of the bullet.
I hope instant death is modelled if a person is hit in the middle of the upper or lower torso (severing the spine), heart or the head for the 9mm & 7.65mm pistol rounds. For supersonic rounds the critical hit zones should be placed the same but be bigger & wider, since a supersonic bullet does do a lot more damage to surrounding tissue than a subsonic one, and can even break bones close by.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Although I agreed with panzer jager that the CNS could be an instant killer, this is actually very rare.
I only get my info from anatomy classes, but I think most of the time it will break the victims back, leaving him of course in agony, but paralysed and not dead instantly.
The nerves in the spine are motoric and sensoric nerves of the extremeties and some organs. (not heart/lung, heart has it's own pacemaker and lung is innervated by the vagus nerve).
So in theory (and maybe in practice) a shot directly in the nerves in the spine can have detrimental consequences on the brain (by sort of overloading or tranfer forces to the brain), however imho not a direct hit on the nerves will shatter bone (or the bone can even deflect some) and cut the nerves, while not 'overloading' the brain.
So not everything (not even a lot imho) dead center will be an instant kill. The CNS is not a big organ and it's well protected by bone.
However this is only theoretical knowledge so if someone has sources stating otherwise I am all ears.
Upvote
0
I've went through this entire thread and seen some very compelling arguments to both sides. I would like to say, however, with the system in place of leveling and tracking, it could be said that this is something that could be improved with achieving veteran levels.
By game standards, a raw Russian recruit shot from a long distance by an 8mm Kar98 in the chest or stomach has .01% chance of continuing on, or triggering a slow death. The chance might be 5% for a veteran, who has a chance to crawl himself into cover before dieing. This is something acceptable to myself because of
A: The shock of being shot in an unprepared state
B: The difference in mentality between a veteran and a recruit
Now, I believe that the shorter the range, that the more likely you are to trigger the slow death moment. Why? Because in seeing the face the enemy who has shot you, it is motivation for one last action against him. He has become the target of your hatred. Again, this would vary depending on the prestige level of the character. A recruit might have a >5% chance, while a veteran might have a >15% chance.
I don't think anyone was arguing that heroic actions didn't occur, just that they occurred far less frequently than thought. Some of these individuals are people who have years of training, both mental and physical, far beyond what a recruit or standard soldier has.
It is both ill advised to do one or the other, ignore or over-glorify, and I believe tripwire has taken this into account. I can only hope that your progression helps in this area.
By game standards, a raw Russian recruit shot from a long distance by an 8mm Kar98 in the chest or stomach has .01% chance of continuing on, or triggering a slow death. The chance might be 5% for a veteran, who has a chance to crawl himself into cover before dieing. This is something acceptable to myself because of
A: The shock of being shot in an unprepared state
B: The difference in mentality between a veteran and a recruit
Now, I believe that the shorter the range, that the more likely you are to trigger the slow death moment. Why? Because in seeing the face the enemy who has shot you, it is motivation for one last action against him. He has become the target of your hatred. Again, this would vary depending on the prestige level of the character. A recruit might have a >5% chance, while a veteran might have a >15% chance.
I don't think anyone was arguing that heroic actions didn't occur, just that they occurred far less frequently than thought. Some of these individuals are people who have years of training, both mental and physical, far beyond what a recruit or standard soldier has.
It is both ill advised to do one or the other, ignore or over-glorify, and I believe tripwire has taken this into account. I can only hope that your progression helps in this area.
Upvote
0