Re: Small Arms Lethality

> From: [email removed]
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 04:53:00 BST
> Subject: Re Small Arms Lethality
>
>   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. Over the years I have heard repeated
>   complaints about the "low lethality" of what was originally
>   the Twilight: 2000 combat system, and which is now GDW's
>   core roleplaying system. I don't know how many times I've
>   heard actually _angry_ gamers tell me that they can hit a
>   man-size target 100% of the time at X range, and our rules
>   are BS because they have less than a 50% chance, or even
>   worse.

  According to R M Ogorkiewicz ("Technology of Tanks") tank gunners are on
average half as good in combat as they are on the range. I'd bet that
infantry that doesn't sit in a nice chair behind equivalent 500mm of armour
in a dry vehicle have a performance in combat of one third of what they
have on the range.

>   Or that this wound or that wound might or might not
>   knock someone down in the game, but in "real life" would
>   invariably prove fatal.

  The first thing that should always be repeated in arguments over guns
and damage in roleplaying games is that _not even professional wound-
ballisticists agree on more than the basic mechanism behind bullet trauma
to humans_(1).

***
  Designing a damage system for a game using todays knowledge of wound
ballistics is like designing a SFRPG without knowing newtonean mechanics.
  The absence of formulas has to be countered by using large amounts of
empirical data.
***

  The second thing that should be repeated is that bullets do strange things
in bodies. They can find avenues where they can pass without causing much
damage on the least likely of places(2). Sometimes they get stuck in bones
and cartilage, sometimes they bounce, and sometimes they curve around and
follow the bone in an entirely new direction. Somtimes they change direction
for no reason at all.

>   The following represents most of the actual exchanges of
>   gunfire that took place during the unit's existence. I will
>   present as much information as I know, and make a few
>   observations at the end, but leave gamers to draw their own
>   conclusions as to hit probabilities and weapon lethality.

  I think there exists huge amouts of empirical data on military and civilian
shootings collected by the Army (3), FBI, medical journals etc that would
be useful. I think the example from the border force had a good selection
of cases(4) although (as stated) too few.

  My opinion, though, on systems is that they should have the capability of
giving widely separate results almost randomly. A wimpy bullet should have
the capability to kill a Grizzly while a big and ugly round should have
the capability to leave a wimpy person alive and almost unharmed. The
chance of this occuring does not have to be big, but it should exist.

  [This is why I'm using openended damage rolls, all 6'es rolled means that
another dice is rolled and added to the total and so on, in T2k:) ]

(1). A good example is the stories behind various modern bullet designs:
     Glaser, AET, Hydrashok, Magsafe, Black Talon, Starfire, Sabre, Cyclone.
     Some of them work and some of them don't, and it is for all practical
     purposes impossible to predict this beforehand using pure theory
     without empirical data.

(2). There is an story told about three Finnish machinegunners that were
     shot in the head from directly in front of them by a Soviet sniper.
     All of them survived without major incapacitation because the bullets
     had passed between the brainhalves and above the stem. This is of
     course totally unsubstantiated information and even I think it sounds
     a little strange to say the least.

(3). US Army, the Swedish Army uses anestecized pigs.

(4). Good selection means no selective editing. By choosing real cases to
     suit the theory one could prove precicely anything so it is very
     important that the data is complete.

- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."