Things I've Learned about Gun Combat

[aramis]

Army BT in 1987 at dix... Brawling 0, Bayonet 0, Asault Rifle 1, Grenade 0, Tow/Dragon 0, medical 0, demolitions 0.
Assault rifle was the prime skill- 12 days shooting, plus several days on cleaning and care. Plus constant carry of the thing.
We had basic jiujutsu, we did lots of bayonet work, both well above level 0, but both below level 1.
We had to set up dummy claymores, fire dummy TOWs...

And failing first aid was grounds to recycle (one guy did...)

 

[infojunky]

Gun combat 0 = 1980s USN "weapons familiarization" - according to friends who went though USN basic training at the time, they were taught how to load, unload, aim, & fire - when they went to the range they simply shot downrange in the direction of the targets (usually a M-16 converted to .22LR, and possibly a .22LR handgun)... if they missed completely they were simply "passed", and their records marked "requires training before being issued a firearm", while those that did well were tagged for possible later training for the "ship's self-defense team" on whatever ship they might be stationed.

Way back when I got all my firearms as a adjunct to Boat School after Boot Camp. Some of the Nicest Marine instructors I have ever met. Mostly it was by Rate and then By needs of your specific command if you got training.

 

[Timerover51]

One of the results of that study was the determination that it would take a 3 inch shell to stop someone if they were shot in the arm or the leg, so you'd have to be hauling around a cannon.

It would appear that the following is the source of your comment, it is on page 78 of the 1916 edition. Note, it does not refer to either the arm or leg, but only if soft body parts are the only tissue hit. That does somewhat limited the possible ares to below the rib cage and above the pelvis.

We are not acquainted with any bullet fired from a hand weapon that will stop a determined enemy when the projectile traverses soft parts alone. The requirements of such a bullet would need to have a sectional area like that of a 3-inch solid shot the recoil from which when used in hand weapons would be prohibitive.

The determined enemy that they were thinking of is the following type of individual.

At war with savage tribes or a fanatical enemy, a military man seeks to arm his soldiers with a rifle that delivers projectiles with telling effect. A fanatic like a Moro wielding a bolo in each hand who advances with leaps and bounds and who never knows when he is hit until he is shot down must be hit with a projectile having a maximum amount of stopping power.

The Moros on the southern Philippine Islands are still fighting the Philippine government currently.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

I don't agree that having experience in shooting a gun will also give basic knowledge of anatomy. I think that would be under 'education' stat as to having a clue as to what forms damage might take.

I don't agree that coolness under fire should be part of gun skill. It should be a form of morale check as discussed in 'Striker'. I'm afraid I don't know if Mongoose has anything like that in its rules, though. Most players probably would revolt against rules that made them do something they don't want to do because of a dice roll...

" you failed your morale check and rout. You must run away to nearby cover. no, you don't get to shoot back. "

Perhaps the effect from a morale check might be used as a dm for hitting the target?

their is a skill that sorta fits the bill....

Discipline. basically, it lets to reduce negative penalties by his discipline skill value, once per day per skill level (ie a character with discipline-3 can reduce the penalties on a skill roll by 3, up to 3 times a day). This is explained as your character's ability to use their training to ignore distractions and do what they was taught to do (ie shoot straight while being shot at, or fix the reactor while the sirens scream that its about to explode whatever).

 

[McPerth]

This is new to me.

If you're trained, that is, like every Traveller character who has even level zero in a gun combat-type skill, here are some of the things that go into this training.

* you know that shoulder or leg hits can hit an artery, causing a bleed-out.
* you know that a torso hit can cause slow, painful death, internal bleeding, sepsis...
* when you draw a gun in a gunfight, you inherently accept the potential responsibility for someone else dying. I.E. you've already dealt with that scenario in your mind at some level.
* when you draw a gun your adrenaline kicks in, which means you lose fine motor skill and your focus narrows; the wrong focus can be fatal.
* you're trained to not freeze.

I'd add:

* you know that a torso hit can cause slow, painful death, internal bleeding, paralisis (spinal damage), sepsis...
* Gun Safety measures. E.g.;

• recoil may shatter you own shoulder if you unproperly rest your rifle on it (unless you're using lasers, off course).
• cartiges burn. Beware where they fall (if using CPR rounds, off course)

Army BT in 1987 at dix... Brawling 0, Bayonet 0, Asault Rifle 1, Grenade 0, Tow/Dragon 0, medical 0, demolitions 0.
Assault rifle was the prime skill- 12 days shooting, plus several days on cleaning and care. Plus constant carry of the thing.
We had basic jiujutsu, we did lots of bayonet work, both well above level 0, but both below level 1.
We had to set up dummy claymores, fire dummy TOWs...

And failing first aid was grounds to recycle (one guy did...)

(bold is mine)

I guess in T4 (and any other versión that has it) this wil lbe changed to First Aid, as no truly medical skill is thaught...

 

[robject]

We were told way back in S4 that everyone has Gun Combat-0 automatically except for Barbarians, Bureaucrats, and Doctors.

Including professions that don't get even cursory training.

After talking things over, I have come to understand that Traveller character generation (even Civilian careers) are not typical people. They can be average, high, or low by nature (characteristics), but they are not typical.

 

[MThompson016]

We were told way back in S4 that everyone has Gun Combat-0 automatically except for Barbarians, Bureaucrats, and Doctors.

Including professions that don't get even cursory training.

I would take GC-0 to be familiarity with 'point boom stick at target and pull trigger, some have recoil some don't', but not even necessarily a licensing level much less combat training.

I take Gun Combat-0 IMTU as there being near-universally available low end survival courses that many take consisting of a wees long, gets a basic familiarization with guns and some survival gear as well. It's enough to get a wise person to understand they don't have the expertise, and get them to RTFM.

Something like the Hostile Environment training for journalists (article: http://www.npr.org/sections/npr-ext...aining-journalists-for-reporting-in-war-zones )

 

[mike wightman]

After talking things over, I have come to understand that Traveller character generation (even Civilian careers) are not typical people. They can be average, high, or low by nature (characteristics), but they are not typical.

As I posted a while ago, in my view:
"a Traveller is a person who has had an epiphany, that what they have been doing with their lives so far is over and they have to head out on their own.
Their old career is gone, and the society they were part of no longer wants them in that role. Rather than lie down and wait for the end they break with society norms and begin to Travel. They adventure, seeking to gain rewards, rewards that actually matter: a sense of worth, money, reputation; not social status since they are now living outside societal norms..."

 

[aramis]

I'd add:

* you know that a torso hit can cause slow, painful death, internal bleeding, paralisis (spinal damage), sepsis...
* Gun Safety measures. E.g.;

• recoil may shatter you own shoulder if you unproperly rest your rifle on it (unless you're using lasers, off course).
• cartiges burn. Beware where they fall (if using CPR rounds, off course)

(bold is mine)

I guess in T4 (and any other versión that has it) this wil lbe changed to First Aid, as no truly medical skill is thaught...

I got in basic the exact same training as I did in civilian Advanced & Wilderness First Aid, except for suturing (which is part of WFA in Alaska). It's more than basic bandaging and splinting. Use of atropine, use of epinephrine, basic cardiac life support, buddy rescue and carry, a variety of splinting techniques, a variety of bullet specific first aid techniques, both for imminent and for absent evac, and very basics of differential diagnostics (Buddy drops - here are the symptoms - what's most likely, then next), and of common medical ailments of soldiers in the field. Discussion of (but not practical training) for cauterizing wounds. (AFA and WFA are the last step prior to EMT 1 in Alaska; WFA includes suturing wounds as a radio-doc directed "just in case.") Treatment and prevention of fungal infections.

Definitely nowhere close to medical 1, but

 

[kilemall]

The way I deal with skill vs. damage vs. body locations, Striker Mod, summarized-

Limbs get 1D damage, center mass like chest thorax and thigh gets 2D, head gets three.

GC skill adds to location hit, so the more skilled you are the more likely you will do 'proper' shooting and hit center mass/head.

Penetration table does penetration vs. armor and rolls, average roll 7 with 0 pen and 0 armor does no additional damage. Range can be -3D to +3D.

Blunt trauma damage delivered by clubs, hammers, hooves, HE etc. get an additional 1D. No energy weapon bonus, most of them have pen values that are reflected in the pen damage table.


So on average, say a pistol with pen 1 hits an unarmored target in a chest area- 2D damage, with a pen chance range of -2D to +3D with a slight weight to doing some additional damage.

So, could be literally a grazing nothing scratch, could be 5D damage, but on average enough to take a person down on the CT first shot rule.

Now then, with armor a lot of shots will come to 0D, but I prefer that so players know when they got hit but protected.

I decided not to have GC skill affect pen/armor results, as it would have been a bit overpowering and thrown off what I wanted to get, a match with the damage the weapon does, and to get some of those 'didn't penetrate but delivers lesser trauma' sort of results.

Also allows me to have players have differing armor on, a protected vest may cover the 2D slots but an unprotected limb hit might do more damage, and an uncovered head shot definitely will.

Encumbrance rules for heavy/overall armor that's not powered makes the torso/helmet only option more likely or at least viable.

Anyway, bottom line, I integrated GC and hit location driven die count into the damage resolution system so the skill and location hit literally increases damage and locational armor will affect, but its' not godlike.

 

[Major B]

I don't agree that having experience in shooting a gun will also give basic knowledge of anatomy. I think that would be under 'education' stat as to having a clue as to what forms damage might take.

I concur for the reasons already covered by Timerover51 below.

You are correct in this. Most military training is that you aim for the center of mass of the target, which typically is going to be the upper torso/chest area. If you suspect body armor, then either go for the abdomen, likely to be unprotected by the armor, or the head shot. You are not going to intentionally go for an arm or leg shot as those are probably going to be moving and if you miss, that bullet is going to go somewhere that you did not intend.

Agreed based on the training I have completed. About 90% of my US Army marksmanship training has stressed a good sight picture centered on the visible portion of the target, which is conveniently shaped like a human silhouette (thanks to SLA Marshall). The exceptions were firing on the KD range, training long-range marksmanship, and training on transition skills, transition from M4 to M9 and back again. I'll write more about that in a minute.

For shattering the long bones in the arms and legs, the most efficient cartridge was found to be the British .476, the largest cartridge used in the test. The .45 Colt also performed well, the smaller .38 and .30 caliber cartridges did not perform adequately in the view of the testers.

This reminds me of an idea not covered yet in that skill with one weapon does not necessarily translate well to another similar weapon. My example is the differences between the M1911 .45 and the M9 9mm.

I grew up shooting my father's M1911, loved it and gained some small skill with it as a teenager. When I was commissioned in the Army, transition to the M9 was almost complete so I learned to field strip a .45 but never trained with one while in uniform. By comparison the M9 feels "wrong" to me still because of the wider frame and the lack of recoil. I shoot well enough with the M9 now to qualify sharpshooter or expert when I qualify but that inconsistency means that I haven't overcome fully the shooting habits I learned as a teenager.

Actually Aim Low, between working the action for the next shot and general shock/excitement of close combat you tend to let your barrel rise.

Actually I aim high, at about the neckline, when I fire the M9 because I tend to "push" the weapon to compensate for the expected recoil of the .45 meaning I will sometimes hit the dirt in front of the target. Part of the bad habits I mentioned earlier. And to be clear, learning to compensate like that is not the same thing as good marksmanship which I think would be better described as "unlearning" those bad habits. I'm not sure if that's possible for anyone but I know that a lot of training has only allowed me to be partially successful.

I mentioned transition fire earlier. On deployments I carry an M4 and an M9. Most Soldiers only carry one weapon but my specialty requires both because we interact with people a lot. In close quarters even the relatively short M4 is hard to bring to bear so we train to transition between the M4 and M9 quickly. Even then, you can't always get a good sight picture so it is more effective to learn to physically "point" the weapon toward the middle of a threat individual and fire rather than bothering with the sights. If you have to draw and fire fast, firing from the hip saves time needed to raise the weapon to eye level. Also, in close quarters extending the weapon out to arm length means it can be "batted" out of the way so firing with the pistol held close to the chest can be safer. These are uncommon examples and it takes a lot of practice to be effective this way but the whole point of transition fire training is to use the short gun to fight your way to an place or situation where you can employ the long gun.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

since Major B mentioned transitions shoots, here is a video used by the British army during their CQM training as the 30 second overview at the start of lesson.


For those that are interested, the Instructor is form the Small Arms School Corps, and the soldier with a shotgun is Household Division (specifically, the Household Cavalry Regiment, since he's got a 1 Armoured Infantry Brigade flash on his left arm, and the HCR are the only Guards unit in that brigade). The Rifleman we see in closeup is, appropriately, form the Rifles, and interestingly, the soldier we watch ready his rifle, and stood behind the shotgunner in the wide shots, is a Royal Engineer. The expected use of this training is in "Guardian Angel" roles, a sentry/bodyguard position used to protect against insider attacks.


On pistol shooting, I also have a bad habit of pushing the barrel down, which leads to me ending up aiming above the targets head in some cases in order to compensate.


on targeting, the british army training is, almost always, fire at the centre of the visible mass, the sole exception I can name being the aforementioned CQM training, where its two shots to the chest (to stop him) followed by two the head (to kill him), repeated as often as needed if hes still moving. the reason for the apparent overkill is the need to protect against suicide attacks, so you need to make 100% sure hes not going to press the switch.


One thing that's not shown in the video is a quick draw technique we are taught, which is basically to bring the pistol up to your chin/eyeline straight form the holster, then fire as your extending your arms into the normal pistol stance. its one of those things that works well if you practice it a lot, and keep practicing it, but otherwise its better to just draw normally.

 

[infojunky]

Actually I aim high, at about the neckline, when I fire the M9 because I tend to "push" the weapon to compensate for the expected recoil of the .45 meaning I will sometimes hit the dirt in front of the target.

Note, I was talking specifically about shotguns and Boarding and what was Taught way back in the day by the USN.

As for personnel bits, I am better than average with pistols and shotguns, but long ranged rifle fire is a real chore, being as I am left eye dominate. Thus point shooting with both eyes open I am just fine, hand me a rifle for a ranged shot and I have to think about to get a decent shot off.

 

[Major B]

Thanks for sharing the video Xerxes.

on targeting, the british army training is, almost always, fire at the centre of the visible mass, the sole exception I can name being the aforementioned CQM training, where its two shots to the chest (to stop him) followed by two the head (to kill him), repeated as often as needed if hes still moving. the reason for the apparent overkill is the need to protect against suicide attacks, so you need to make 100% sure hes not going to press the switch.

Wow, flashback. One of the days on the transition fire range one of my guys came up with the phrase "PSYOP Shot Group" - meaning two to the heart and one to the mind. I've never forgotten that one.

 

[Major B]

Note, I was talking specifically about shotguns and Boarding and what was Taught way back in the day by the USN.

As for personnel bits, I am better than average with pistols and shotguns, but long ranged rifle fire is a real chore, being as I am left eye dominate. Thus point shooting with both eyes open I am just fine, hand me a rifle for a ranged shot and I have to think about to get a decent shot off.

I wasn't trying to find fault, just pointing out that I have bad shooting habits. But you reminded me of something I forgot to mention. I aim high on the first shot because I have a heavier, longer trigger pull working the double action so more time for my old bad habits to take effect. After the first shot the hammer locks back and the trigger pull is lighter and I can shoot faster with more accuracy.

I don't think that aspect of the auto pistol is reflected in any rules version though.

You also infer another thing that makes aiming harder - difference in height between the shooter and the target. I think aiming a bit low is a good practice if you are shooting down toward a boat lower in the water than yours. There's a lot to consider in that situation that I've never worried about like how much the chop is moving the platform you are shooting from and also the platform the target is on. A really good situation for a shotgun I think.

 

[Diveguy]

My 2 credits...

FWIW - based on almost 30 years doing this stuff professionally, between military and law enforcement, and to include 2-way range experience both overseas and stateside. Also being a "certified" firearms instructor for a large chunk of that time.

Going to ramble a bit here. Just a few thoughts from where the threat has touched points:

- The early 20th century study cited had some valid points BUT there are important elements to keep in mind. The first being, the vast majority of the rounds looked at in that time were based on the "big bullet/slower velocity" school of thought, and using older powders and technologies; to include in general solid/soft point lead rounds. Technology has come a LONG way in ammunition - heck, even the past decade has seen some interesting advances. So, while it's a starting point, you would be better served looking at more current data such as comes out of the FBI at Quantico and the USMC/US Army ammunition evaluations which have taken place over the past few years. The modern school of thought in rifles seems to find the peak of effectiveness at somewhere around the 6mm (+/- 1mm) diameter range, working at about 700-1000m/s velocity... there are of course debates within and around this, but these numbers seem to provide a relatively consistent end result without overpenetration, and while allowing your troops to carry a reasonable amount of ammunition. Pistols have a bit more debate, BUT, with modern ammuntion (expanding jacketed hollow point/bonded variations) seem to really be about the same in terms of real world results. I can state similar experience in my time - there are VERY few "one shot stops" with a handgun round, unless a central nervous system hit is involved & for all the arguments people get into, I've seen very few people get up and argue back after a few rounds of 9mm in the face. HOWEVER, I can also say, that if it ISN'T one of those CNS or artery hits, most handgun hits are pretty survivable with modern technology.

- Traveller (particularly CT, my original and still preferred) pretty much followed these lines for ammo - or, looked at some "newer" technologies (lasers, Gauss weapons using a small diameter but super high velocity projectile, plasma, etc). Surprisingly it seems that little was done in terms of weapons tech/ammunition etc. Moving a projectile into soft tissue to cause damage is a pretty simple concept, so I tailor my "what if" advances to things like caseless/binary ammunition, and the like in my games, and higher capacities than in the stock rules.

- Sure, sepsis, infection, fragments remaining behind and the like can be an issue. BUT we are way further along with this in 2017 than we were even in 1970... injuries that would have been considered a death sentence in 1917 are a routine treatment issue these days. So, we can only expect similar advances in the time between now and reliable star travel...

- I will qualify that, and kind of follow on the points people were making about arterial hits, bone shattering etc. - yeah, it can all be a pain (literally)... While as I said, if you survive the initial contact, most gunshot wounds are survivable these days - it's not a quick or painless recovery. Whether surgery, rehabilitation, or loss of sensation/function, there is definitely a path to healing. How crunchy you choose to make that in game is your call...

- Without turning this into a marksmanship lesson, there are two reasons we generally teach to aim "center mass" (really center of *visible* mass to be accurate) - #1, greater chance of hitting those vital organs or nervous system elements to incapacitate your target rapidly; #2, greater margin for error. If I'm aiming at your head/hand/leg and miss by six inches who knows where the round goes... if I'm aiming at your bipedal sternum and I'm off by six inches it's still in your body somewhere. Also, as sexy and effective as they are, head shots on a moving target when you're moving, under stress, and the like are gorram hard... the folks who do that stuff for a living spend enough time to have skill levels well above average.

- Now for game thoughts. As I've stated another time, "back in the day" I debated weapons and ammo mechanics with the best of them. I'd fight for that extra +1 because the "Rhydellian ACR is known for the reliability and lethality, so *of course* Imperial Marine Commandos would use it first!" Now? We're working on a 2d6 range... a +/-1 is a way bigger influence than any of these factors really should be showing. If you want to go that route, I am not knocking it - but I prefer to let players use that for flavor text more than worrying about how it influences the actual rolls.

- Same general theory on skills. IMTU I pretty much put a skill level 0 at "ok, but not super-experienced or used to performing under stress", level 1 is a "I could get a job doing this", level 2-3 is "I can teach this"; and 3-4+ is "I'm well known for my ability at this". Since I typically cap out terms and levels, I don't usually see higher numbers. So, IMTU, GC-0 is "I know how to operate and use the weapon in basic situations, but don't have a ton of combat experience," level 1 is infantry competence with probably at least some real-world time, and 3+ is considered *good* and known for their ability. I also group my weapons together, rather than the "I have a level 1 in ACR and a level 2 in handgun, but you give me a regular rifle and I'm -3" - always struck me as stupid, given that you're just applying different basics to tools in the tool box.

Think I'll wrap it up there. On a side note, for the guys having issues with anticipating recoil and double action/single action transitions I can give side pointers if you want

 

[infojunky]

I wasn't trying to find fault, just pointing out that I have bad shooting habits.

I wasn't taking it that way, I was just speaking to what I was taught many years ago. With that the weapons I usually had issued were .38 revolver on a Lanyard and a Ash Truncheon.

 

[Ulsyus]

Hmmmm, this opens a discuss for *where* a character learned their gun combat levels. Military and agent careers spring to mind as having the focus of the opening post. Merchant, criminal and drifter careers would seem to focus more on the 'shoot the paper target' school. I don't want to add another skill, but some sort of 'coolness under fire' check as Mike mentioned would then seem to be in order.

Target shooting and taking tactically appropriate action when on a two-way range really are two different things. The former is just popping shots off. The latter is a whole range of actions that include putting rounds down-range, but with a big focus on staying alive and working with one's off-sider. Two weapons firing, in a coordinated and managed manner, are always better than one. Plus, four to eight guys all coordinating fire and movement is messy, rather loud, and requires a fair degree of concentration and coolness so only the other side cop your shots.

I don't agree that coolness under fire should be part of gun skill. It should be a form of morale check as discussed in 'Striker'. I'm afraid I don't know if Mongoose has anything like that in its rules, though. Most players probably would revolt against rules that made them do something they don't want to do because of a dice roll...

That was one of the things I particularly liked about 2300AD: it was possible to distinguish between trained and experienced personnel and sporting shooters.

One thing that's not shown in the video is a quick draw technique we are taught, which is basically to bring the pistol up to your chin/eyeline straight form the holster, then fire as your extending your arms into the normal pistol stance. its one of those things that works well if you practice it a lot, and keep practicing it, but otherwise its better to just draw normally.

In ECQ (extreme close quarters) you only have to clear the holster to be able to start firing, literally from the hip. Takes a bit of practice, but it works neatly when holding off the other guy with the other arm.

 

[robject]

- Same general theory on skills. IMTU I pretty much put a skill level 0 at "ok, but not super-experienced or used to performing under stress", level 1 is a "I could get a job doing this", level 2-3 is "I can teach this"; and 3-4+ is "I'm well known for my ability at this". Since I typically cap out terms and levels, I don't usually see higher numbers. So, IMTU, GC-0 is "I know how to operate and use the weapon in basic situations, but don't have a ton of combat experience," level 1 is infantry competence with probably at least some real-world time, and 3+ is considered *good* and known for their ability. I also group my weapons together, rather than the "I have a level 1 in ACR and a level 2 in handgun, but you give me a regular rifle and I'm -3" - always struck me as stupid, given that you're just applying different basics to tools in the tool box.

And this is pretty much in line with general expectations.

The game, however, doesn't care about that level of simulation. In CT, level-0 skill means no penalty, while no skill imposes the penalties. So the game expects that Level 0 gun combat has had to fight using a gun, and at least viscerally (pun?) knows what it means to be in a firefight.

 

[Diveguy]

And this is pretty much in line with general expectations.

The game, however, doesn't care about that level of simulation. In CT, level-0 skill means no penalty, while no skill imposes the penalties. So the game expects that Level 0 gun combat has had to fight using a gun, and at least viscerally (pun?) knows what it means to be in a firefight.

And I certainly wasn't straying from that as much as implying "Level 0" is like you said, experienced enough to know the basics, but not an expert by any stretch... but they're not going to freeze under fire. Going off what you pointed out, a lot depends on how crunchy you want to get.

I think part of my point was building from earlier in the thread - to me, "Gun Combat" as a skill covers a broad swath of information, from the weapon itself, to basic tactics using that weapon (not general "tactics" as a skill), to why you shoot rounds where on a particular sophont - as opposed to the implied thinking some had of "to effectively employ gun combat you need medical skill as well."