> Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems
>
> By Frank A Chadwick
>
> I know of few issues in roleplaying systems that cause as
> much passionate argument as do small arms fire, both hit
> probability and damage.
It wouldn't be such a big issue if it didn't take such a big chunk
of the rules for most roleplaying games. Partly caused by this,
combat tends to be a vital part of most campaigns. (It's a lot
easier to write a scenario for which you already have some rules)
[...]
> When the gunman shifted the pistol to his left hand and
> turned it on Officer Chacon, Sergeant Lopez quickly reached
> into his clothing, drew the .38 special snub nosed revolver
> from his shoulder holster, and fired all five rounds at the
> gunman in rapid succession.
> Of the six shots fired at point blank range at Tamez (five
> by Lopez and one by Castillo), five hit.
That's quite impressive - 80% hit rate for a series of 5 snap-shots,
and the single other shot also hit.
> Of all of these, the chest wound was the most visible, as
> Tamez's shirt immediately became soaked with blood, but it
> did the least damage, as the .38 Special bullet bounced off
> Tamez's ribcage and did only superficial damage.
OK, low damage roll.
> The two groin hits were the the most dangerous,
High damage roll. In systems that account for it, quite possibly
also internal bleeding and other complications.
[...moving Tamez out...]
> Tamez found it so painful to be dragged over the rocks that
> he demanded to be laid down and then got up, pushed the
> officers away, and climbed out of the canyon under his own
> power.
>
> Both of the wounded men recovered completely.
Not uncommon. A large fraction of dangerous or fatal gunshot wounds
are not immediate. Fairly prompt medical attention is often
effective.
[...]
> All of the police officers were armed; most of them had
> two revolvers. Castillo had three revolvers and a shotgun.
> Several of them also wore bullet-proof vests. Of the five
> officers, two were combat veterans - both Salgado and Gil
> were Marine NCO's with extensive combat experience in
> Vietnam and both were former drill instructors. Gil had
> also been all-Marine Judo Champion.
[...]
> All of the officers
> and suspects were now thoroughly mingled and all were
> probably within three or four meters of each other.
>
> Officer Castillo, armed with a short pump shotgun under
> his coat, was probably the first to fire. He pointed the
> shotgun at Morales and fired, hitting him in the gun hand
> and blowing most of the fingers off, disarming him in the
> process. All of the other officers except for Gil drew their
> revolvers and began firing.
One shotgun shot to the hand, hitting, doing serious damage to
that hand. Then more snap-shots, these in a melee situation.
> Chacon and Vasquez both emptied their revolvers in rapid sucession.
> The second suspect ran into the night
Night? OK, presumably bad visibility, too.
> pursued by Chacon and Vasquez, still firing.
Firing on the move?
> After a brief chase the second suspect fell wounded.
>
> The first bandit lay on top of Gill, apparently dead. In
> addition to the shattered hand from Castillo's shotgun, he
> had received seven other bullet wounds at point blank range:
> one each to the right shoulder, left lower chest, left side
> of the back, upper spine, left elbow, and two over the right
> clavicle. Amazingly, he was still live.
Took serious damage, but shock didn't kill him. Depending upon
a more detailed breakdown, 1-3 hits might be called hits to
`vital' locations.
> The second bandit was shot three times, once in each leg
> by pistol shots and once straight through the neck, from one
> side to the other, by a stray buckshot pellet.
Two leg hits, 1 minor neck hit (what's that translate to in
T2000?).
> Two of the officers were wounded. Castillo, shortly after
> firing his shotgun, had reached out to grab the wounded
> suspect and had been shot straight through the wrist, and
> was almost immediately incapacitated by pain. Gill, as he
> dove for Morales, was shot in the hip. Both officers were
> inadvertently shot by officer Chacon, firing across the
> ditch from the other side.
Outside the melee, firing in.
[...]
> "Lobo") held Lopez's shooting arm in a vice-like grip and
> held a knife in his free hand. While Lobo still held his
> shooting arm, Lopez managed to get his hand to his wasteband
> and draw his 5-shot Model-36 and quickly emptied it in a
> semicircle around him: one shot to the man holding the
> rifle, then one at the man in front of him, then one into
> Lobo, holding his arm, then the last two bullets at the man
> to his right. At this point the suspects scattered and began
> to flee, except for Lobo, struggling with Lopez.
>
> Officer Cervantes scrambled out of the south end of the
> pipe and fired one round at the fleeing suspects with his
> revolver while Officer Camacho crawled out of the north end
> of the pipe and fired twice with his shotgun, dropping one
> of the fleeing suspects (who later rose and continued to
> flee). Camacho then dropped his shotgun, drew his pistol,
> and fired five more shots at the fleeing suspects. Officer
> Cervantes pursued a suspect for several meters into Mexico,
> fired one more shot at him, and then returned. As he
> returned, one of the suspects fired first four pistol shots
> at the officers from out of the darkness and later fired a
> fifth. Officer Chacon shortly afterwards heard four other
> shots fired at them from a different direction.
>
> The officers fired a total of two shotgun shells and about
> a dozen pistol shots. Of these, apparently one shotgun shell
> and two pistol shots scored hits.
But there may have been more - there were two *verified* hits.
One shotgun blast (at unknown range, at night, fired at a moving
target) of two hit, about 7 pistol shots were also fired under the
same conditions, 1 almost certainly hitting, the others having
unknown result. The 5 initial shots were snap-shots, with the
firing arm held "in a vice-like grip".
[... 2 more ...]
> The third suspect was facing Officer Chacon, who this
> night was armed with a shotgun. Chacon raised the shotgun
> and, at a range nearly close enough to touch the suspect
> with his hand, discharged the shotgun once directly into the
> center of the suspect's chest. The suspect stood for a
> moment looking at him, then turned around and walked calmly
> away into the darkness. Unsure whether he had somehow missed
> the target or the suspect was wearing some form of body
> armor, Chacon followed him cautiously and soon found him
> lying peacefully on the ground, dead of massive chest
> injuries. (San Diego Police Lieutenant Richard Snider would
> later describe the wound as, "...a hole in his chest you
> could throw a cat through.")
As is common with gunshot wounds, death was not instantaneous. In
this case, almost certainly inevitable.
> Observations
>
> In the five incidents presented above, Task Force officers
> fired about ninety rounds, most of them at close range, and
> scored 29 hits, or 32%.
What about the `first shot' hit rate? Most of the shots were
rapid-fire snapshots without aiming - and T2000 assumes that
shots are `normally' fired after aiming.
> Of even more interest are the eight
> shots fired while effectively in physical contact with the
> target (one shot by Lopez at the leader "Lobo" in incident
> three, 3 shots by Lopez at Hernandez in incident four, and
> in incident five 2 of Lopez's 5 shots at his suspect,
> Chacon's 1 shot and Vasquez's 1 shot). Of these eight shots,
> only four were hits, or 50%.
3 of the shots were "amazingly" misses. That implies that the
writer expected that they should normally have hit, thus a higher
percentage would be more typical.
> Finally, it is intersting how
> many of the casualties were achieved by one man, Chacon.
> Although he apparently did not fire or score hits in
> incident three and was not present for incident one, he hit
> with his only shot in the fifth incident, was the only
> officer to hit Hernandez in the fourth incident, and
> actually scored at least one, and perhaps more, hits on
> every man (including the two friendly officers) wounded in
> the second incident.
In the second incident, I'd have to say that his hits on friendly
officers shouldn't be counted, since they were almost certainly
not the intended target. If you count only shots fired under the
same conditions, his hit rate isn't statistically better than all
the other officers.
> As to bullet lethality, a total of fifteen officers and
> suspects were wounded in these five incidents, and they were
> hit by a total of 32 bullets. Most of the injured men were
> struck by a single bullet; four were struck by muliple
> bullets, and of these one was struck by eight bullets. Of
> these fifteen casualties, 2 were killed almost instantly
> while the other thirteen survived and recovered.
What about the shotgun blast through the chest? Was that classified
as `almost instantly'? Also, all those who were known to have
survived presumably received medical treatment. The fate of those
who didn't receive expert medical help is presumably not known.
> All of
> those who suffered multiple gunshot wounds recovered. That
> is, none of the fatalities were caused by a cumulative
> build-up of trauma, but rather were due to a single,
> almost instantly fatal, wound.
This is quite common. Those who do not die within a few minutes
(and receive medical care) often recover. Multiple wounds (no one
of which kills) usually kill slowly by blood loss and long-term
internal damage, which medical science can treat, but is often
fatal if not treated.
Also, these cases illustrate severely sub-optimal conditions with
pistols in extremely poor lighting, where both sides are aware
of the other, and in melee circumstances. Also, even as examples,
they illustrate *typical* results, rather than *potential*. As
stated earlier in this list, even *maximum* damage to the chest
won't kill a target with most weapons, unless multiple rounds are
fired. This conflicts with the observation that fatalities were
due to "a single, almost instantly fatal, wound".
Besides, were these examples selected randomly? They illustrate
less lethality than is evidenced by "The Journal of Trauma".
- --
Tim Little