• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Can a pistol not kill you in one shot?

G'day Everyone,

I'm a newbie here (although not a newbie to Traveller) and figured I may as well dive in to the pool with a subject that is fairly meaty and obviously concerns quite a few people.

First, if I may be indulged; my background realworld is 12 years in the Aussie Army both inflicting injuries and treating them. Consider my skills as something akin to Combat Rifleman-3/Rifle-4, Medical-2. (Yes, I can back up the claims of such high numbers
file_22.gif
)

Let's look at "Hydrostatic Shock" and why it kills some and not others. As someone has already stated here, it affects the surrounding tissue and can cause huge amounts of damage, more-so with supersonic rounds.

The question was asked how someone shot in an extremity could die and the answer is ......Hydrostatic shock not only propagates through the tissue, but finds and even better conductive media within the blood stream itself. Imagine the round striking the radial (wrist) artery and setting a hydrostatic shockwave up within the artery. It travels very well, it's contained somewhat within the artery walls and hammers the heart/lungs without mercy. Someone need only have an inconsequential cardiac complaint and hey presto, instant cardiac arrest. I'll let your ample imaginations work through other likely scenarios. ;)

For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass". This is because the majority of major organs are located in the biggest seen part of a human. If you can see the sucker's chest, hit it!

Someone mentioned "double taps". For the uninitiated (and yes, I know there are some out there who have vague ideas about what it is), this is where we fire 2 rounds very fast at the target. The theory is that the second round should leave the muzzle before significant recoil from the first round has spoilt the aim. The practice is that you can get 2 rounds within 1-4 cm at 100 metres. This utelises the inherint instability of the dove tail ball ammunition so that you have 2 rounds tumbling through the target in close proximity to each other with the hydrostatic shockwaves colliding and chewing up the organs. People have survived double taps to the abdo! Just as people have survived head shots. Hell, I know a man personally who survived sharing a gun pit with an 81mm mortar round and he still has all his own body parts.

Bottom line is that real world ideals of 1 round = 1 kill is best left to hollywood. The majority of gunshot wounds in combat die post injury and usually well after shock has set in. Indeed, it is often the systemic shock that kills them rather than the wounding itself. This is considered in medical circles (the ones I circulate in) as a secondary cause rather than primary.

For me, a pistol is always and will always be a last line of defence. I am as good with a pistol as a rifle and I would never hope to kill a target with 1 shot.

With all that in mind, I never really had an issue with the rules as they stand in CT. It isn't real world accurate, but as has been pointed out, real world is awfully hard to model. I use the interpretation that if you have a roll of 14 and the character's strength is 7, then the other 7 goes to another stat!

Any questions on what we have just covered?


Ohh and who mentioned the SAS using full auto delivery of rounds to confirm kills? Not an SAS policy in any of the regiments. Double Taps from all weapons are the policy and no trooper I know would enter a killing house with a weapon on "rock and roll". It's bad for moral when you paint your mates brains all over the wall in training whilst he plays the hostage and even worse news when they are real hostages, all because you couldn't control the muzzle on full auto.(It happens to the best of us) ;)

Thanks for reading, and apologies in advance if anyone thought I was "talking down" to them. I just like to make sure I've kept everyone in the loop and as former member of the TML (before wandering off to travel the world) I can't remember how many times some of you fellas left me floundering in explanations that without a degree in physics, I could never hope to understand.


Beannacht (Blessings)
 
G'day Everyone,

I'm a newbie here (although not a newbie to Traveller) and figured I may as well dive in to the pool with a subject that is fairly meaty and obviously concerns quite a few people.

First, if I may be indulged; my background realworld is 12 years in the Aussie Army both inflicting injuries and treating them. Consider my skills as something akin to Combat Rifleman-3/Rifle-4, Medical-2. (Yes, I can back up the claims of such high numbers
file_22.gif
)

Let's look at "Hydrostatic Shock" and why it kills some and not others. As someone has already stated here, it affects the surrounding tissue and can cause huge amounts of damage, more-so with supersonic rounds.

The question was asked how someone shot in an extremity could die and the answer is ......Hydrostatic shock not only propagates through the tissue, but finds and even better conductive media within the blood stream itself. Imagine the round striking the radial (wrist) artery and setting a hydrostatic shockwave up within the artery. It travels very well, it's contained somewhat within the artery walls and hammers the heart/lungs without mercy. Someone need only have an inconsequential cardiac complaint and hey presto, instant cardiac arrest. I'll let your ample imaginations work through other likely scenarios. ;)

For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass". This is because the majority of major organs are located in the biggest seen part of a human. If you can see the sucker's chest, hit it!

Someone mentioned "double taps". For the uninitiated (and yes, I know there are some out there who have vague ideas about what it is), this is where we fire 2 rounds very fast at the target. The theory is that the second round should leave the muzzle before significant recoil from the first round has spoilt the aim. The practice is that you can get 2 rounds within 1-4 cm at 100 metres. This utelises the inherint instability of the dove tail ball ammunition so that you have 2 rounds tumbling through the target in close proximity to each other with the hydrostatic shockwaves colliding and chewing up the organs. People have survived double taps to the abdo! Just as people have survived head shots. Hell, I know a man personally who survived sharing a gun pit with an 81mm mortar round and he still has all his own body parts.

Bottom line is that real world ideals of 1 round = 1 kill is best left to hollywood. The majority of gunshot wounds in combat die post injury and usually well after shock has set in. Indeed, it is often the systemic shock that kills them rather than the wounding itself. This is considered in medical circles (the ones I circulate in) as a secondary cause rather than primary.

For me, a pistol is always and will always be a last line of defence. I am as good with a pistol as a rifle and I would never hope to kill a target with 1 shot.

With all that in mind, I never really had an issue with the rules as they stand in CT. It isn't real world accurate, but as has been pointed out, real world is awfully hard to model. I use the interpretation that if you have a roll of 14 and the character's strength is 7, then the other 7 goes to another stat!

Any questions on what we have just covered?


Ohh and who mentioned the SAS using full auto delivery of rounds to confirm kills? Not an SAS policy in any of the regiments. Double Taps from all weapons are the policy and no trooper I know would enter a killing house with a weapon on "rock and roll". It's bad for moral when you paint your mates brains all over the wall in training whilst he plays the hostage and even worse news when they are real hostages, all because you couldn't control the muzzle on full auto.(It happens to the best of us) ;)

Thanks for reading, and apologies in advance if anyone thought I was "talking down" to them. I just like to make sure I've kept everyone in the loop and as former member of the TML (before wandering off to travel the world) I can't remember how many times some of you fellas left me floundering in explanations that without a degree in physics, I could never hope to understand.


Beannacht (Blessings)
 
I, too, prefer Azhanti High Lightning-style rules, where combat is simple to learn and fast, fast, fast.

Has anyone done an update of the AHL rules? Or perhaps I should ask if they need updating?
 
I, too, prefer Azhanti High Lightning-style rules, where combat is simple to learn and fast, fast, fast.

Has anyone done an update of the AHL rules? Or perhaps I should ask if they need updating?
 
Originally posted by Antaine:
For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass". This is because the majority of major organs are located in the biggest seen part of a human. If you can see the sucker's chest, hit it!
From a close friend in US SF, most of the military sniping they do is still done under 400m. A lot of the anti-materials rifle work they trained for was in the 200-400m range.

Still, ERT and SWAT snipers often do not target center of seen mass (if the target has body armour or there are blow-through or related issues). Or if they're just trying to disarm or disable someone.

For me, a pistol is always and will always be a last line of defence. I am as good with a pistol as a rifle and I would never hope to kill a target with 1 shot.
In many police and/or SF CQ scenarios, some members of the entry team may well have a pistol as their primary weapon. I wouldn't choose one if I was out in the open terrain (heck, even in urban I'd prefer a good SMG or carbine), but I can understand the reasons behind it. In these roles, the weapon is not a last line of defense and the shooting does have the intention to kill quickly, though perhaps with multiple shots delivered rapid-fast to the target.

Ohh and who mentioned the SAS using full auto delivery of rounds to confirm kills?
I believe I said the JTF2 use this technique, learned from the SAS. I can cite the author who makes this claim and the work in which it is made. Based on his bibliography and the pieces of the work I can personally verify, I have no reason to doubt this claim.

Not an SAS policy in any of the regiments. Double Taps from all weapons are the policy and no trooper I know would enter a killing house with a weapon on "rock and roll".
I never said it was 'full auto'. I said 'rapid fire'. Usually, I get the impression from the source, with a pistol. The point being to apply massive damage in a very short period to a key target to insure he goes down and stays down. Notice how you said people survive double taps? This attempts to reduce the odds of survival to near zero.

This is not 'poicy' from my understanding. It is a specialized technique used in specific situations where a double-tap is deemed insufficient.

I can't speak to its use by SAS, merely that the evidence suggests it was a technique developed by the SAS which JTF2 practices for the rare cases where it is required.

It's bad for moral when you paint your mates brains all over the wall in training whilst he plays the hostage and even worse news when they are real hostages, all because you couldn't control the muzzle on full auto.(It happens to the best of us) ;)
A friend of mine, training with the Canadian SERT team, had ear damage. She was tied to a chair and a flashbang went off underneath it. So I know whereof you speak re: training accidents.

Thanks for reading, and apologies in advance if anyone thought I was "talking down" to them. I just like to make sure I've kept everyone in the loop and as former member of the TML (before wandering off to travel the world) I can't remember how many times some of you fellas left me floundering in explanations that without a degree in physics, I could never hope to understand.
Not a problem.

I'm very fortunate to have an eclectic collection of friends in various military branches from various nations as well as many friends in law enforcement at all levels. That has given me a fairly wide perspective on some of these issues, but by no means encyclopoedic. I'm always glad to have new input/perspectives.

I was just a bit sick of seeing players shrug off pistol shots and no one ever die from one.
 
Originally posted by Antaine:
For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass". This is because the majority of major organs are located in the biggest seen part of a human. If you can see the sucker's chest, hit it!
From a close friend in US SF, most of the military sniping they do is still done under 400m. A lot of the anti-materials rifle work they trained for was in the 200-400m range.

Still, ERT and SWAT snipers often do not target center of seen mass (if the target has body armour or there are blow-through or related issues). Or if they're just trying to disarm or disable someone.

For me, a pistol is always and will always be a last line of defence. I am as good with a pistol as a rifle and I would never hope to kill a target with 1 shot.
In many police and/or SF CQ scenarios, some members of the entry team may well have a pistol as their primary weapon. I wouldn't choose one if I was out in the open terrain (heck, even in urban I'd prefer a good SMG or carbine), but I can understand the reasons behind it. In these roles, the weapon is not a last line of defense and the shooting does have the intention to kill quickly, though perhaps with multiple shots delivered rapid-fast to the target.

Ohh and who mentioned the SAS using full auto delivery of rounds to confirm kills?
I believe I said the JTF2 use this technique, learned from the SAS. I can cite the author who makes this claim and the work in which it is made. Based on his bibliography and the pieces of the work I can personally verify, I have no reason to doubt this claim.

Not an SAS policy in any of the regiments. Double Taps from all weapons are the policy and no trooper I know would enter a killing house with a weapon on "rock and roll".
I never said it was 'full auto'. I said 'rapid fire'. Usually, I get the impression from the source, with a pistol. The point being to apply massive damage in a very short period to a key target to insure he goes down and stays down. Notice how you said people survive double taps? This attempts to reduce the odds of survival to near zero.

This is not 'poicy' from my understanding. It is a specialized technique used in specific situations where a double-tap is deemed insufficient.

I can't speak to its use by SAS, merely that the evidence suggests it was a technique developed by the SAS which JTF2 practices for the rare cases where it is required.

It's bad for moral when you paint your mates brains all over the wall in training whilst he plays the hostage and even worse news when they are real hostages, all because you couldn't control the muzzle on full auto.(It happens to the best of us) ;)
A friend of mine, training with the Canadian SERT team, had ear damage. She was tied to a chair and a flashbang went off underneath it. So I know whereof you speak re: training accidents.

Thanks for reading, and apologies in advance if anyone thought I was "talking down" to them. I just like to make sure I've kept everyone in the loop and as former member of the TML (before wandering off to travel the world) I can't remember how many times some of you fellas left me floundering in explanations that without a degree in physics, I could never hope to understand.
Not a problem.

I'm very fortunate to have an eclectic collection of friends in various military branches from various nations as well as many friends in law enforcement at all levels. That has given me a fairly wide perspective on some of these issues, but by no means encyclopoedic. I'm always glad to have new input/perspectives.

I was just a bit sick of seeing players shrug off pistol shots and no one ever die from one.
 
For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass".
If you go here and read through the posts throughout the forum there are many examples of Special Forces combat veterans critical of this training doctrine. They argue that aiming for the CNS (head, neck) is the only sure way to stop an opponent from retaliating even if mortally wounded.
Thanks to Uncle Bob for the original link.
 
For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass".
If you go here and read through the posts throughout the forum there are many examples of Special Forces combat veterans critical of this training doctrine. They argue that aiming for the CNS (head, neck) is the only sure way to stop an opponent from retaliating even if mortally wounded.
Thanks to Uncle Bob for the original link.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:


I'm very fortunate to have an eclectic collection of friends in various military branches from various nations as well as many friends in law enforcement at all levels. That has given me a fairly wide perspective on some of these issues, but by no means encyclopoedic. I'm always glad to have new input/perspectives.

I was just a bit sick of seeing players shrug off pistol shots and no one ever die from one.
I should have mentioned that my experience is purely military related and I have no doubt that law enforcement have different outlooks; they have to.

I can understand though why you'd be annoyed at the wounding rules allowing people to walk away. I found secret Referee rolls to be of use though. ie. apply an extra 9 hits to the character 2 combat rounds later as an "sudden onset of vasovagal shock" :D

Beannacht
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:


I'm very fortunate to have an eclectic collection of friends in various military branches from various nations as well as many friends in law enforcement at all levels. That has given me a fairly wide perspective on some of these issues, but by no means encyclopoedic. I'm always glad to have new input/perspectives.

I was just a bit sick of seeing players shrug off pistol shots and no one ever die from one.
I should have mentioned that my experience is purely military related and I have no doubt that law enforcement have different outlooks; they have to.

I can understand though why you'd be annoyed at the wounding rules allowing people to walk away. I found secret Referee rolls to be of use though. ie. apply an extra 9 hits to the character 2 combat rounds later as an "sudden onset of vasovagal shock" :D

Beannacht
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass".
If you go here and read through the posts throughout the forum there are many examples of Special Forces combat veterans critical of this training doctrine. They argue that aiming for the CNS (head, neck) is the only sure way to stop an opponent from retaliating even if mortally wounded.
Thanks to Uncle Bob for the original link.
</font>[/QUOTE]Many a night was spent in the boozer arguing this one out. The majority in my push were all for CoSM (centre of seen mass) shooting. Many of us were survivors of a 2-way range shoot.


Beanacht.
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For the record, real world, we are taught even in sniper/recon training to aim for "the centre of the seen mass".
If you go here and read through the posts throughout the forum there are many examples of Special Forces combat veterans critical of this training doctrine. They argue that aiming for the CNS (head, neck) is the only sure way to stop an opponent from retaliating even if mortally wounded.
Thanks to Uncle Bob for the original link.
</font>[/QUOTE]Many a night was spent in the boozer arguing this one out. The majority in my push were all for CoSM (centre of seen mass) shooting. Many of us were survivors of a 2-way range shoot.


Beanacht.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
[QB]
I never said it was 'full auto'. I said 'rapid fire'. Usually, I get the impression from the source, with a pistol. The point being to apply massive damage in a very short period to a key target to insure he goes down and stays down. Notice how you said people survive double taps? This attempts to reduce the odds of survival to near zero.

This is not 'poicy' from my understanding. It is a specialized technique used in specific situations where a double-tap is deemed insufficient.

I can't speak to its use by SAS, merely that the evidence suggests it was a technique developed by the SAS which JTF2 practices for the rare cases where it is required.
I wanted to address this earlier and was in a rush so I'm having a second bite. :D

I mis-read your post and saw "rapid fire" as "auto"....In the Aussie military, "Rapid Fire" denotes a burst of 5-10 rounds from a weapon on Automatic rather than a weapon set to Repetition (Single Shot).

A friend of mine, training with the Canadian SERT team, had ear damage. She was tied to a chair and a flashbang went off underneath it. So I know whereof you speak re: training accidents.
Hearing protection should be mandatory for all involved in training situations. That is not what I'd call a training accident as much as it is training negligence. Of course, in typing this, I am not aware of all the details surrounding the incident but merely voicing an opinion based on my perception of what you said.


Beannacht.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
[QB]
I never said it was 'full auto'. I said 'rapid fire'. Usually, I get the impression from the source, with a pistol. The point being to apply massive damage in a very short period to a key target to insure he goes down and stays down. Notice how you said people survive double taps? This attempts to reduce the odds of survival to near zero.

This is not 'poicy' from my understanding. It is a specialized technique used in specific situations where a double-tap is deemed insufficient.

I can't speak to its use by SAS, merely that the evidence suggests it was a technique developed by the SAS which JTF2 practices for the rare cases where it is required.
I wanted to address this earlier and was in a rush so I'm having a second bite. :D

I mis-read your post and saw "rapid fire" as "auto"....In the Aussie military, "Rapid Fire" denotes a burst of 5-10 rounds from a weapon on Automatic rather than a weapon set to Repetition (Single Shot).

A friend of mine, training with the Canadian SERT team, had ear damage. She was tied to a chair and a flashbang went off underneath it. So I know whereof you speak re: training accidents.
Hearing protection should be mandatory for all involved in training situations. That is not what I'd call a training accident as much as it is training negligence. Of course, in typing this, I am not aware of all the details surrounding the incident but merely voicing an opinion based on my perception of what you said.


Beannacht.
 
Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
If in doubt, I say screw the rules and use common sense
. If you get shot fully in the head by anything, you're either going to be dead or severely brain damaged/handicapped. And I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to survive more than two or three bullet wounds at once without immediate medical attention.
Well CNN did have a story about a woman who was shot 4 times in the head and survived. Anything can happen
 
Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
If in doubt, I say screw the rules and use common sense
. If you get shot fully in the head by anything, you're either going to be dead or severely brain damaged/handicapped. And I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to survive more than two or three bullet wounds at once without immediate medical attention.
Well CNN did have a story about a woman who was shot 4 times in the head and survived. Anything can happen
 
Originally posted by Antaine:

I mis-read your post and saw "rapid fire" as "auto"....In the Aussie military, "Rapid Fire" denotes a burst of 5-10 rounds from a weapon on Automatic rather than a weapon set to Repetition (Single Shot).
Ah. Well, I use the term Rapid Fire as the way I was trained with it - firing off semi-automatic just about as fast as you can pull the trigger and shift aim if req'd. In the case of this pistol technique, I think it means shots to multiple areas such as the head/neck, sternum, thighs (to get the big arteries), etc. The idea being to down your target with broad systemic damage and shock in a very short period of time with a near-gaurantee they won't be getting up or doing anything you don't want.

Hearing protection should be mandatory for all involved in training situations.
Concur. My understanding was she had protection (the in-ear kind of plug). However, despite that, or perhas due to the 1/4 stick going off under her chair, she suffered a damaged eardrum. It may have dislodged her hearing protection. It did ring her bell (mild concusion) and throw her chair ass over teakettle with her tied to it.
 
Originally posted by Antaine:

I mis-read your post and saw "rapid fire" as "auto"....In the Aussie military, "Rapid Fire" denotes a burst of 5-10 rounds from a weapon on Automatic rather than a weapon set to Repetition (Single Shot).
Ah. Well, I use the term Rapid Fire as the way I was trained with it - firing off semi-automatic just about as fast as you can pull the trigger and shift aim if req'd. In the case of this pistol technique, I think it means shots to multiple areas such as the head/neck, sternum, thighs (to get the big arteries), etc. The idea being to down your target with broad systemic damage and shock in a very short period of time with a near-gaurantee they won't be getting up or doing anything you don't want.

Hearing protection should be mandatory for all involved in training situations.
Concur. My understanding was she had protection (the in-ear kind of plug). However, despite that, or perhas due to the 1/4 stick going off under her chair, she suffered a damaged eardrum. It may have dislodged her hearing protection. It did ring her bell (mild concusion) and throw her chair ass over teakettle with her tied to it.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Concur. My understanding was she had protection (the in-ear kind of plug). However, despite that, or perhas due to the 1/4 stick going off under her chair, she suffered a damaged eardrum. It may have dislodged her hearing protection. It did ring her bell (mild concusion) and throw her chair ass over teakettle with her tied to it.
I wonder if she had her mouth open at all.......
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Concur. My understanding was she had protection (the in-ear kind of plug). However, despite that, or perhas due to the 1/4 stick going off under her chair, she suffered a damaged eardrum. It may have dislodged her hearing protection. It did ring her bell (mild concusion) and throw her chair ass over teakettle with her tied to it.
I wonder if she had her mouth open at all.......
 
Back
Top