Real world weapon damages.

[stenver]

So i was wondering, what weapon really is the most deadly. To keep it simple, lets say stomach gets hit.

Medieval longsword Sword to the stomach?
Turkish composite shortbow Arrow to the stomach?
Arablest(heavy crossbow) Bolt to the stomach?
9mm bullet to the stomach?
50. cal bullet to the stomach?
Fist punch to the stomach?

What would be the most damaging, hardest to treat and most deadly of these. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of these deadly weapons. (for example, you need to damage the stomach even more to pull out the arrow, but as long as it stays in, it somewhat keeps the wound from healing)

[Harris the Ford]

.50 would blow a sizable chunk from your stomach, given the range, but a 9mm would bounce around inside and most likely not leave an exit wound. Thus the 9mm would do a lot of internal damage that would be rather hard to treat. I'm no expert on swords so I'll leave that judgment to someone else, thats just my two cents worth.

[Spiryt]

Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124683) may be good place for this.


And whole question really is far to generic, and is based on too much generalizations.

Answer would depend on way too much things.

And secondly, even with bullets there's not so much good experimental, let alone real life data. With ancient weapons - you know...


Medieval longsword Sword to the stomach?

What sword? Thrusting, with needle like point XXa type? Or maybe rounded, flat, thin XIIIa? How exactly attack is delivered?


Turkish composite shortbow Arrow to the stomach?

What draw, what draw length, what arrow, how is arrow head like, what range - few basic things that would determine the answer.

Similar stuff would go for crossbow.


9mm bullet to the stomach?
50. cal bullet to the stomach?

Fired from what? - essentially determines energy, spinning, few other things that gun guys would tell you.

What bullet - full metal jacket, pure lead? Something else?


Fist punch to the stomach?

Probably most varied of the bunch...

My 14 years old sister can punch me to the stomach as hard as she wants, she's not doing any real damage.

If freaking Semmy Schilt or Mike Tyson sucker punched my stomach, I would have good chances of dying pretty quickly, most probably.

Of course, with pretty much all of the above, exact place of injury, build and other individual qualities of individual would matter much.

Again, if I really punched my sister, I would make her hurt quite badly, if I punched Mr. Schilt he wouldn't care about my weak man, amateur punches at all.

And then there are thousands other variables, from awareness of victim to skill of attacker.

For quick answer I would probably bet on 0.50 cal fired from some powerful rifle to be 'universally' most damaging stuff, in it's own way. Also relatively independent from "wielder" - if he manages to hit stomach, damages done.

Huge wound, huge shock to the organs and nerves from impact and other stuff somebody will know more about.

If bullet manages to flip or otherwise turn a bit in a body, complete internal disaster is done.

[kestrel404]

Try yhe show 'deadliest warrior' for real world ancient weapon comparisons with scientific backing.

Here's a hint: A solid blow from almost any weapon is going to kill you, especially if you can't get to a hospital quickly. Some of them take two hits, or a hit on a soft target.

[Spiryt]

Try yhe show 'deadliest warrior' for real world ancient popcultural weapon comparisons with pseudo
scientific backing.


Really, that people must be warned about that show.

Although indeed, some of their tests may give some insight, even though they're not usually sensible... Like stabing pig carcass without anything inside, just hanging from hook... Really?

They're fun to watch, but won't give many serious answers.

[Xuc Xac]

Try yhe show 'deadliest warrior' for real world ancient weapon comparisons with scientific backing.


Did you type that with a straight face? :smallconfused:

[RE:Insanity]

9mm bullet to the stomach?
50. cal bullet to the stomach?


Depends on the gun. I've seen 9mm's that wouldn't leave an exit wound, and 9mm's that would shred your guts. I've seen 50 cal. that would 'only' leave a fist sized hole in your gut, ones that would leave 'only' leave a thumb sized hole but would literally turn everything but your skin to juice and throw you about 10 ft back, and ones that if they hit your left pinky finger, would tear off your left arm.

[Xuc Xac]

would literally turn everything but your skin to juice and throw you about 10 ft back, and ones that if they hit your left pinky finger, would tear off your left arm.

You too. Same question. :smalltongue:

[Milskidasith]

Yeah, no gun throws people ten feet back or rips their arm off; anything that does so would break the arms of the person holding it at the least (or wherever the energy from the recoil goes). Liquifying people is even worse, because that's not even what bullets do.

Likewise, I seriously doubt that a 50 caliber bullet would be leaving a hole smaller than the bullet itself, so "thumb sized" is rather odd. (OK, I know it varies, but the average thumb is probably slightly less than 1/2 inch wide)

I do not pretend to be a weapon's expert; I know pretty much nothing about them, but... yeah, what Insanity said makes no sense.

[Psyx]

.50AE or .50BMG?

It comes down to what is destroying the most tissue, which mainly comes down to the depth and size of the wound channel. Although firearms also cause damage through the shockwave/temporary wound channel.

The lower torso has lots of important stuff in it, but most isn't immediately fatal. All of the most crucial stuff there is at the back of the body, meaning that you need the penetration to reach there in order to cause an immediate stop.

All of those weapons (except a fist and the 9mm in the right circumstances) are going to penetrate deep enough to do severe damage. Most will probably go right through. Now look at the cross-section of the weapons. The sword is obviously more likely to hit something crucial than anything else, except for a .50BMG round. The .50 BMG and the sword are going to be most lethal, to my mind. The 9mm and fist least.


"but would literally turn everything but your skin to juice and throw you about 10 ft back"

Science says 'No'.

[RE:Insanity]

Yeah, no gun throws people ten feet back or rips their arm off; anything that does so would break the arms of the person holding it at the least (or wherever the energy from the recoil goes). Liquifying people is even worse, because that's not even what bullets do.

Likewise, I seriously doubt that a 50 caliber bullet would be leaving a hole smaller than the bullet itself, so "thumb sized" is rather odd. (OK, I know it varies, but the average thumb is probably slightly less than 1/2 inch wide)

I do not pretend to be a weapon's expert; I know pretty much nothing about them, but... yeah, what Insanity said makes no sense.

Flathead 50 caliber bullets fired from a barrett 50 caliber rifle are meant to do concussive rather than piercing damage to armored targets, and it's have you SEEN something get shot by a normal 50 caliber bullet from one of those rifles? Messy.
Though, yeah, the pinky comment was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. Still, you don't really need to hit an 'important' part of the body to kill someone with one of those. I've seen it happen man. Not the pinky comment, but still.
And I've seen some pretty damn big thumbs. Not on children, mind you, on full grown, average sized people.
And unless you fire it from a stable position, with the stock put in your shoulder right, the barrett fifty caliber and quite a few other rifles that use even smaller ammo can very easily dislocate your shoulder, true, very true, but that's why anyone using those weapons is very careful, and smart enough not to fire two bullets off in rapid succession.

Science says no? Well new ammunition type and multiple ballistics gel bodies say 'yes', my good ninja.

[NeoRetribution]

Stenver, what you are talking about is damage. Initially this is called Area of Destruction. The greater the area of destruction, specifically, the amount of disturbed tissue, the greater physiological and psychological damage to the body. In addition, the more often that this destruction can be applied, the greater opportunity to disable the target and then perform an ending maneuver.

What does that mean? It means that when physical matter ( in your question: stomach tissue ) is disturbed through violent displacement, the physical matter tries to resume its former shape. When it is unable to, this causes shock to the target body. This shock and trauma is increased when the violent displacement occurs in rapid succession.

Unfortunately, your question requires an extremely detailed medical answer which I am not properly qualified to give. So let us assume a worse-case-scenario. With the stomach as the target ( this is important as a different target will change the efficiencies of the listed weapons ) the most relevant weapon is the hard fist.

Why the fist?

The fist, properly used, will displace the diaphragm and air from out of the target's lungs. The fist is a readily available weapon, as most people have one. The fist does not need to be loaded. The fist is the most concealable of all the weapons listed. And the fist never jams or mis-fires.

This makes it an exceptionally reliable weapon, but not necessarily the best given variety of circumstances. The longsword is a huge contender for the position of the most dangerous, but it is heavy, unwieldly, requires much training, and is preferred to strike at higher targets on the opponent body. By the time the opponent is on the ground to let the user use the longsword, it would be better to attack the neck instead of the stomach.

Now, about the ranged material. First, the only proper weapons on the list are the fist and the sword. The rest are munitions used in weapons. But let us assume that these munitions are used in weapons and the ones which are the least appropriate.

The firearms are indeed powerful and good at range. However, without the specific weapons, rate of fire, or other distinguishable performance issues ( such as optics ( scope ) ), I am forced to conclude that the fist, which can be re-used more quickly than most bolt-action rifles, is more readily deadly.

If the 9mm or .50 caliber bullets were distributed into the weapons from magazines and used semi-auto or full-auto fire rates, I might think differently.

The crossbow munitions are worthless. In terms of sheer deadliness the rate of fire from bows and crossbows are not worth considering as a full combat weapon. And as I am certain that I might offend a few people with that statement, I will extend my sympathies now.

I do find it strange that you did not list any daggers or short swords such as the gladius. But their exclusion makes the discussion more simple.

And...as it might be helpful for you, most firearms users only use the stomach as a target if they absolutely have to. There are more appropriate targets to use to drop an opponent with less trouble. Even with the fist.

Hope this was helpful! Cheers.

[Spiryt]

a huge contender for the position of the most dangerous, but it is heavy, unwieldly, requires much training, and is preferred to strike at higher targets on the opponent body. By the time the opponent is on the ground to let the user use the longsword, it would be better to attack the neck instead of the stomach.

No longsword would be heavier than anything shooting the 0.50 or heavy crossbow.

So I'm not sure what you mean by that. :smalltongue:

And they were very "wieldy". Whole point of them.


The crossbows are worthless. In terms of sheer deadliness, as determined by rate of fire, none of them are worth considering as a full combat weapon.

So you are talking about some "area of destruction" and then say that crossbows are "worthless" based on rate of fire?

Combatants of about 1100 - 1600 in Europe only disagree with you.

So do the animals killed yearly with modern or even traditional crossbows, depending on hunters taste.

[Milskidasith]

Flathead 50 caliber bullets fired from a barrett 50 caliber rifle are meant to do concussive rather than piercing damage to armored targets, and it's have you SEEN something get shot by a normal 50 caliber bullet from one of those rifles? Messy.
Though, yeah, the pinky comment was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. Still, you don't really need to hit an 'important' part of the body to kill someone with one of those. I've seen it happen man. Not the pinky comment, but still.
And I've seen some pretty damn big thumbs. Not on children, mind you, on full grown, average sized people.
And unless you fire it from a stable position, with the stock put in your shoulder right, the barrett fifty caliber and quite a few other rifles that use even smaller ammo can very easily dislocate your shoulder, true, very true, but that's why anyone using those weapons is very careful, and smart enough not to fire two bullets off in rapid succession.

Science says no? Well new ammunition type and multiple ballistics gel bodies
say 'yes', my good ninja.

No, it does not. Science does not have any bullets that can liquify humans, rip arms off, launch people ten feet back, or make miraculous wounds that are smaller than the bullet. Excuse me if I doubt your story about how you've seen it happen. And yes, a .50 caliber gun can dislocate your shoulder, which is why I was saying the miraculous "launches a guy ten feet back" gun would break your arms in the best case scenario (assuming you were standing in a stable enough way to not be launched backwards yourself).

I doubt your entire story, due to the sheer ludicrousness of it. Not only that, but when somebody asks a question about real life, using extreme hyperbole is not a good thing. Using any form of exaggeration at all is not a good thing when dealing with real life questions. Granted, the question is vague, but making up capabilities about a certain weapon does not help the question, just like it wouldn't help the discussion if I brought in the cliche'd "katanas are underpowered" rant and talked about how it would be able to slice the guy in half.

[RE:Insanity]

No, it does not. Science does not have any bullets that can liquify humans, rip arms off, launch people ten feet back, or make miraculous wounds that are smaller than the bullet. Excuse me if I doubt your story about how you've seen it happen. And yes, a .50 caliber gun can dislocate your shoulder, which is why I was saying the miraculous "launches a guy ten feet back" gun would break your arms in the best case scenario (assuming you were standing in a stable enough way to not be launched backwards yourself).

I doubt your entire story, due to the sheer ludicrousness of it. Not only that, but when somebody asks a question about real life, using extreme hyperbole is not a good thing. Using any form of exaggeration at all is not a good thing when dealing with real life questions. Granted, the question is vague, but making up capabilities about a certain weapon does not help the question, just like it wouldn't help the discussion if I brought in the cliche'd "katanas are underpowered" rant and talked about how it would be able to slice the guy in half.

Just because something is ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't true. Regardless of what you believe (key word there. if belief made something true, there would be monsters everywhere that had children nearby), I've seen things like this happen. It's not that hard to knock someone down and push them back. While a person would probably provide much more forward momentum and flail around a lot more than the ballistics gel body did on the testing grounds, the dummy went 9 feet feet seven inches (rounded down from a .whatever decimal) on one of the shots. Rounded up, that's almost ten feet. Like I said. Not all of that way up, back, down, though. There were pieces flying, it rolled a bit, and bounced twice. I didn't say, "Oh, it flew up in the air and came back down ten feet away (which really isn't that far)".
And I already brought up the topic of thumb sizes, which was dumb anyways. I meant length of the thumb when I first brought thumbs up(just looked back and saw I forgot to mention that, sorry), not width (though there are some thumbs I've seen wider than a basic 50. caliber bullet's width).
This isn't a place for argument, it's for answering questions. Let's remember that now, please?

[Spiryt]

Just because something is ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't true. Regardless of what you believe (key word there. if belief made something true, there would be monsters everywhere that had children nearby), I've seen things like this happen. It's not that hard to knock someone down and push them back. While a person would probably provide much more forward momentum and flail around a lot more than the ballistics gel body did on the testing grounds, the dummy went 9 feet feet seven inches (rounded down from a .whatever decimal) on one of the shots. Rounded up, that's almost ten feet. Like I said. Not all of that way up, back, down, though. There were pieces flying, it rolled a bit, and bounced twice. I didn't say, "Oh, it flew up in the air and came back down ten feet away (which really isn't that far)".
And I already brought up the topic of thumb sizes, which was dumb anyways. I meant length of the thumb when I first brought thumbs up(just looked back and saw I forgot to mention that, sorry), not width (though there are some thumbs I've seen wider than a basic 50. caliber bullet's width).


Where you have seen those tests?

If anyone could see them too, it would make things easier.

So far I can only say that gel dummy would not be anyhow similar to person, it's decent simulation of 'general' flesh tissue, but that's it.


This isn't a place for argument, it's for answering questions. Let's remember that now, please?

If somebody answers with completely untrue statement, where's the point for OP?

[Milskidasith]

Saying "It will knock you back ten feet" tends to imply that it actually does so, not that it knocks you over and you roll ten feet. Furthermore, there are plenty of reasons a dummy would go farther than a human, including the inability to stop itself, less mass (especially if it's a partial dummy), being launched from already being in the air (partial dummies only, mostly, though I am not sure if a real dummy is even capable of standing up without being hanging to begin with), different center of gravity, the inability to have good traction (a dummy is either being held up so it would be easier to knock away, or crumpled in a pile anyway), a smoother surface than a human, etc. Dummies are only good as a simulation for flesh tissue.

You cannot actually knock a human (or an object with humanlike mass) back ten feet without using a gun that would knock you back ten feet (slightly less depending on where the recoil is designed to go and how you were standing). Newton is, as far as I know, still correct on that one.

You say this is not a place for argument, but when you post demonstrably false hyperboles, you should expect for somebody to call you out on it.

[Spiryt]

Human is not uniform springy substance, (s)he has bones to not search long.

Thus he won't bounce like dummy, there's nothing to talk about.

[stenver]

The point of this question is really for homebrewing Grim and Gritty weapon damages.

I dont like D&D weapon damages, i dont like that fist does 1d3 while knife does 1d4. So i pretty much homebrewed damages. starting from 1d3 with fist, going to 1d6 for military knife, upping into 2d10 for katanas and 2 handed swords and beyond.

But i have no idea how to relative to the melee weapons, measure danger level of firearms. How much more dangerous is MP5 shot from 5 feet into chest then a crossbow bolt from the same distance, or spear thrust from an avarage person.

I dont need a super precise answer, just relative enough to get some guidelines down about damage.

And about real weapon or armor question thread - it is way too long and many people dont visit anymore.

[Acero]

http://www.cracked.com/funny-5285-hollywood-guide-to-gunshot-wounds-main-characters/

That will answer what bullet wounds can do. Main characters are safe though.

If you are putting guns it, make an shot that does more damage than the target's CON, and have him roll a fort save to die

[Emmerask]

Did you type that with a straight face? :smallconfused:

*nods with a very serious expression* yeah, this guy is dead :smallbiggrin:

[Milskidasith]

The point of this question is really for homebrewing Grim and Gritty weapon damages.

I dont like D&D weapon damages, i dont like that fist does 1d3 while knife does 1d4. So i pretty much homebrewed damages. starting from 1d3 with fist, going to 1d6 for military knife, upping into 2d10 for katanas and 2 handed swords and beyond.

But i have no idea how to relative to the melee weapons, measure danger level of firearms. How much more dangerous is MP5 shot from 5 feet into chest then a crossbow bolt from the same distance, or spear thrust from an avarage person.

I dont need a super precise answer, just relative enough to get some guidelines down about damage.

And about real weapon or armor question thread - it is way too long and many people dont visit anymore.

Grim and gritty and D&D don't particularly mix; past fifth level, D&D is strictly high fantasy at best, with many elements that don't exist in anything but D&D.

Furthermore, if you are going for "accuracy," (which doesn't work with D&D) making a single katana slash near guaranteed to kill (well, cause bleeding out) the strongest warrior (high con, near maxed HP roll), is rather unrealistic.

Also, when going for realism, damage statistics alone will never do it justice; if you want grim and gritty, non D&D systems with more weapon complexity and that are less "high fantasy" are required.

[soulchicken]

{Scrubbed}

[Milskidasith]

{Scrubbed}

That's neither liquification, a hole smaller than the bullet, nor knocking people ten feet in the air, although the video is so incredibly blurry and poorly zoomed it's hard to tell what's even happening. I honestly can't even see if he's shooting humans, small animals, or just rocks, though the red mist would imply he is hitting some sort of living creature.

EDIT: Found the facts; he's shooting small animals. There's a big difference between knocking the limbs off animals and off of humans. Also, searching "sniper kills" won't get you any kind of videos because, in 99% of cases, you will never find actual footage of a real person being killed because it goes against site policies on... basically everywhere.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The point of this question is really for homebrewing Grim and Gritty weapon damages.

I dont like D&D weapon damages, i dont like that fist does 1d3 while knife does 1d4. So i pretty much homebrewed damages. starting from 1d3 with fist, going to 1d6 for military knife, upping into 2d10 for katanas and 2 handed swords and beyond.

But i have no idea how to relative to the melee weapons, measure danger level of firearms. How much more dangerous is MP5 shot from 5 feet into chest then a crossbow bolt from the same distance, or spear thrust from an avarage person.

I dont need a super precise answer, just relative enough to get some guidelines down about damage.

And about real weapon or armor question thread - it is way too long and many people dont visit anymore.

Eh...this is a poor representation for one reason: skill.

Weapon damage is only a very, VERY rough approximation, and only really effective in the hands of an absolute beginner. If I'm really, really skilled with, say, a rapier, you're much worse off against me than you would be against a guy half-competent with a katana or a longsword: I'll kill you faster and deal MUCH more damage. So, in any true system, skill should directly translate to damage. A military sniper is going to do a lot more damage with a rifle than some guy off the street.

[tyckspoon]

That's neither liquification, a hole smaller than the bullet, nor knocking people ten feet in the air, although the video is so incredibly blurry and poorly zoomed it's hard to tell what's even happening. I honestly can't even see if he's shooting humans, small animals, or just rocks, though the red mist would imply he is hitting some sort of living creature.

For the big chunks that go flying off impressive distances, I'm pretty sure he's just exploding rocks and/or dirt clods. Maybe shooting small animals for some reason.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

{Scrubbed. Please don't quote stuff you think violates the Forum Rules.}

If this is actually what it claims to be, please take it down immediately. Speaking strictly for myself, I'm horrified that you'd post such a thing on a family friendly forum, and I'd not be surprised if others agree with me. Not that I'm a complete pacifist, but this just oversteps the boundaries of good taste.

[Milskidasith]

For the big chunks that go flying off impressive distances, I'm pretty sure he's just exploding rocks and/or dirt clods. Maybe shooting small animals for some reason.

I edited, but yeah, he's shooting small animals as a demonstration, not humans. I was only unsure because I wasn't sure if ebaumsworld actually had the same "no real humans can die" rule that pretty much every other site has.

[RE:Insanity]

{Scrubbed}

Hm. Never seen one of em throw someone sideways. That's just cool.

[Milskidasith]

Hm. Never seen one of em throw someone sideways. That's just cool.

Those aren't real people. They are small animals.

[Spiryt]

Hm. Never seen one of em throw someone sideways. That's just cool.

Shooting small animals, with little possibility to eat or use them after because of damage done is retarded, not cool.

Please read previous posts.

[soulchicken]

That's neither liquification, a hole smaller than the bullet, nor knocking people ten feet in the air, although the video is so incredibly blurry and poorly zoomed it's hard to tell what's even happening. I honestly can't even see if he's shooting humans, small animals, or just rocks, though the red mist would imply he is hitting some sort of living creature.

Then look for other videos, or look for results from being shot by these weapons.

Even if it is an animal or a small animal, the damage done to it would be similiar to a human.

I shot a dove with a 12gauge shotgun at close range that tore the bird apart. I should have waited until the bird was further away to shoot it, that was my bad. Anyway, had I shot a person at close range like that with a shotgun, the results are going to be very messy. Thats the difference between a tiny bird and a medium sized animal (person).

The first kill show what happened to whatever it was, and the it zoomed out to show you how far away the shot was fired from. Whatever got hit was laying down, and was large than a very small animal.

Even if you still don't believe it, use google to prove me wrong. I bet that you will find that I am right in this regard.

Edit: I apologize if the video was in poor taste.

[RE:Insanity]

Still. Up and sideways is unusual. According to Newton, they should go back.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: There is an active thread about real world weapon and armor questions. Also, avoid depictions or descriptions of particularly graphic violence.