How a man is really killed. Info to improve damage mechanics

[No name]

To NikktheTick, and the rest of the people who truly believes the ineffectivenesss of deep wounds inflicted such as knife stabs, and that bleeding is insignificant to physical damage. Initially this information was meant to be given to NikktheTick, who felt that the main source of damage from a gun was from tissue rupturation caused by temporary cavity due to the shockwave after a bullet passes, and that bleeding was due caused by the blood vessels being injured. However i realised that this information could be extended to mediveal weapons too, to inform people in this forum that it is not the force that a weapon can apply on a body, or the length of the cut, but the depth, and the blood loss that is resulted from it. This article contains information regarding modern day projectiles, and information i adapted to apply in melee weapons.

I took alot of effort to search out a reliable source of information on ballistic trauma. And when i say reliable, i mean from the pages of U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. It has been reproduced with permission, but i'm not taking any risk so i will try not to quote directly too many times (under 10% of total). I spent the time and energy to read and analyse its data so please try to understand and accept what i write, because it is not empty opinions, but facts and serious experiments. I dont want to argue anymore about dagger wounds and bleeding and whatnot, so i'll give you the raw facts now to let you disemminate for yourself. I hope you will not try to counter these points anymore as i am not doing this to further the cause to improve daggers, but to learn more about true facts in our world. Also i trust you are grown-up enough not to irresponsibly use these information. I truly hope you enjoy this small bundle of knowledge, and that you read it fully before posting.

Note: this article relates to a previous topic on improving daggers

http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=3911&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Yes, they are much harder to heal: a deep strike with a dagger will more likely kill than a wide slash, but they do not stop the opponent as well as a slash does

You might deliver a blow that will cause the other guy die of infection a week later

Effectiveness

What determines the effectiveness of a weapon? It is the ability to render incapacitation to a subject. Incapacitation here is defined as the sudden physical or mental inability to pose any further risk or injury to others.

Placement of the wound is one important point in this discussion. However, considerations of size of the blade is equally important and cannot be ignored. For example, a stab through the central nervous system with weapon is likely to be immediately incapacitating. Most of the time in combat, we are presented very little opportunity to strike such areas, unpredictable movements of both parties and the enviromental conditions such as lighting and obstacles. Hence for this discussion, we will consider wounds to the centre of mass of the target that presents itself. By this i mean a hit in the center of that part of the adversary which is presented, regardless of anatomy or angle.

Mechanics of projectile wounding

(1) Penetration. The tissue through which the projectile passes, and which it disrupts or destroys.

(2) Permanent Cavity. The volume of space once occupied by tissue that has been destroyed by the passage of the projectile. This is a function of penetration and the frontal area of the projectile. Quite simply, it is the hole left by the passage of the weapon.

(3) Temporary Cavity. The expansion of the permanent cavity by stretching due to the transfer of kinetic energy during the projectile’s passage. This is only in the case of bullets.

(4) Fragmentation. Projectile pieces or secondary fragments of bone which are impelled outward from the permanent cavity and may sever muscle tissues, blood vessels, etc, apart from the permanent cavity. Fragmentation is not necessarily present in every wound. It may, or may not, occur and can be considered a secondary effect.

I skipped the part on fragmentation because it applys only to high velocity bullets present only in rifles and is unrelated to our issue.

Temporary cavites

Of the remaining factors, temporary cavity is frequently, and grossly, overrated as a gauge of damages. Nevertheless, historically it has been used in some cases as the primary means of assessing the wounding effectiveness of bullets.

One example is Relative Incapacitation Index which studied the effectiveness of handguns. The assumption made here that

the greater the temporary cavity, the greater the wounding effect of the round. This assumption was based on a prior assumption that the tissue bounded by the temporary cavity was damaged or destroyed.' 'The depth of penetration and the permanent cavity were ignored. The result according to the RII is that a bullet which causes a large but shallow temporary cavity is a better incapacitater than a bullet which causes a smaller temporary cavity with deep penetration

However, many organs reside deep within the body, hence by ignoring the depth if penetration, it ignores the only way to significantly harm a person.

This is very interesting so i will again quote it all.

Further, the temporary cavity is caused by the tissue being stretched away from the permanent cavity, not being destroyed. By definition, a cavity is a space in which nothing exists. A temporary cavity is only a temporary space caused by tissue being pushed aside. That same space then disappears when the tissue returns to its original configuration. Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds. If there is no fragmentation, remote damage due to temporary cavitation may be minor even with high velocity rifle projectiles. Even those who have espoused the significance of temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor in handgun wounds.'

The reason is because as human cells are elastic, hence stretching them do not cause significant damage as the cells merely move back into shape. The only exception are the liver and extremely fragile cells of the brain would be affected by temporary cavitation.

To kill a man

We are unable to immediately incapicitate a man effectively through wounds to the chest, other than his brain and spinal cord. Physical, physiological and psychological aspects must be considered.

Importance of blood loss

Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time.

Since the wound is not dealt to the nervous system, the body is unable to reliably be incapacitated unless blood pressure drops to extreme levels. Pain is a factor to incapacitation. However, during a fight, or the aftermath of a strike, the body releases adrenaline and other hormones to cause the body to ignore this, suppressed as it is irrelevant to survival. Perhaps the individual is unaware of his injuries, or strong will, instincts, and emotions would keep a horrendously injured man fighting, often seen on the battlefield or the streets.

Wounding

The wounding components are penetration and the permanent cavity. The damage must pass through vital organs and major blood vessels

...the permanent cavity must be large enough to maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging.

Penetration of the body is the major factor in wounding. Regardless of weapon size, it must penetrate at lear 12in of tissue.

If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use

Brief summary of what i am talking about

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable.

Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time.

Conclusion
Hence, we cannot view the effectiveness of a weapon by how much force it generates or apply on a target, rather the amount of bleeding it may cause. In addition, any hits that does not penetrate into vital organs regardless of angles are insufficient to render incapacitation. Since slices and cuts from swords do not penetrate deep, hence we cannot over believe their effectiveness in dealing immediate death or grevious wounds.

BTW, this is proof enough that dagger strikes are just as effective as sword strikes. Supports my previous topic on daggers.

And NikktheTick, here is your answer to ballistic trauma.

Thanks.

EDIT: I initially summerised this post as i felt it was too long to remain interesting. However after reading, i think perhaps some points are left out. If you need further explaining just ask.

 

[okiN]

Interesting enough, but I don't know why it's in suggestions. Implementing a really realistic damage system would probably be completely impossible. It'd be a huge job, you'd have to make in incredibly complicated, work out all the bugs, balance it to infinity, and in the end you'd still have it wrong. So what exactly are you getting at here?

 

[mazzadude]

I took alot of effort to search out a reliable source of information on ballistic trauma. And when i say reliable, i mean from the pages of U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

do you seriously think that the americans are reliable?

 

[okiN]

Are you kidding? We're so ****ing crazy about guns that we're the most reliable source there is for this kind of stuff.

 

[DaLagga]

So, if i understand you correctly, you're trying to prove that daggers are as effective as swords damage wise? Well, while this is true to some extent, you are going to have much more force behind a sword than a dagger...so the sword is going to penetrate deeper. Also the dagger wouldn't be nearly as good at punching through bone. Plus slashing with a sword is much more effective than with a dagger. And i don't care what your sources claim about bullets, having a 16" long 1" deep cut across your chest is going to take you out of combat if nothing else than for the sheer shock value of watching your blood and organs spill out onto the ground. And also it is going to be VERY hard to penetrate plate or chain armor with a dagger, and it doesn't have anywhere near the knockback factor that a sword would (it just doesn't have enough weight behind it). However, i do like how this game portrays daggers as very lethal weapons at close range. Most rgp's have daggers doing about 1/10 as much damage as a sword.

 

[BobG]

No name:

Everything in your analysis looks sound to me up until your conclusions. And out of respect for the amount of research you put into your post, I'm going to try to put an equivalent amount of thought into my response.

My argument

As I said, everything in your research looks sound to me, so I will not bother addressing it. We can take everything you found to be given.

Conclusion

Hence, we cannot view the effectiveness of a weapon by how much force it generates or apply on a target, rather the amount of bleeding it may cause. In addition, any hits that does not penetrate into vital organs regardless of angles are insufficient to render incapacitation. Since slices and cuts from swords do not penetrate deep, hence we cannot over believe their effectiveness in dealing immediate death or grevious wounds.

BTW, this is proof enough that dagger strikes are just as effective as sword strikes. Supports my previous topic on daggers.

I could write a long analysis of why this is wrong, but I am going to start out with a simple argument, and see whether or not you feel it deserves further discussion. Simply, it is this: you are comparing a stab wound inflicted by a dagger to a slashing wound inflicted by a sword. In that narrow analysis, I would agree that you can argue that the dagger is just as effective at wounding as the sword.

However, your argument is incomplete: you are only comparing stabs with one weapon to slashes with the other. You are neglecting the fact that swords can be used to stab as well, and daggers can be used to slash. If you compare a dagger stab to a sword stab, I don't think you'll argue that the dagger causes even remotely equivalent damage: the sword penetrates much further, and creates a larger wound. Likewise, if you compare a slash with a dagger to a slash with a sword, I don't think you'll argue that the dagger is equivalent: the sword can clearly be expected to make a deeper and longer gash, thus inflicting more damage.

As I said, I can go in depth into my reasoning behind these conclusions, but I think it is fairly self-evident. I will say that your research on the mechanics of wounding was very informative and useful, and you deserve credit for that. It was only your conclusion which was flawed.

Edit: I should have been specific. It's the very last sentence that seems to be a flawed conclusion. The short paragraph before actually could merit further discussion. I actually would agree that it is at least possible that a long but shallow sword slash would not instantly drop an enemy. As they proceeded to bleed profusely, they most likely would fall unconscious and then die, but it wouldn't shut them off like a switch, assuming the blow did not sever their spinal cord or something. But returning to my argument, a sword slash would certainly drop an opponent faster than a dagger slash.

 

[BobG]

In order to make all this actually relevant to the Suggestions forum, I could propose this: rather than damage on the battlefield being modeled in the AD&D style, with life points that slowly vanish as your character is wounded, instead it could be modeled realistically as the amount of blood the character has lost, how their central nervous system has been affected, and by any bones or organs that may have been damaged by an attack. The latter would be difficult, since it would require injuries to be calculated according to where the blow was struck, but the other two would be pretty simple: piercing attacks cause blood loss, blunt attacks cause nervous system damage, and slashing attacks cause a bit of both.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Could rant on attacking the whole research (which I must admit is good), but do not have time and desire to do so. I might be the wrong person to ask what bullets do better. I know just one thing: they are NOT knives!!!

The Permanent Cavity of the bullet is very different from that of the knife. A narrow knife blade would cut the flesh on its way. As soon as the knife is removed, the bleeding would depend on wether major blood vessels have been cut.
The massive bleeding would result if a knife penetrates deep, which is unlikely if the target wears strong armor. A shallow knife wound when knife passes ythrough 1 chainmail ring would essentialy be a scratch.
In any case, a sword stab would bleed more since the cavity formed will be way bigger. A knife damage will damage a thin area. If hand gets stabbed, severe bleeding is unlikely.

Now bullets. In their case, the cavity is not a narrow deep cut, it is a volume (often, the length in diameter - not caliber - of the bullet since bullet often rotates in the body) where flesh is turned into a pulp. Moreover, if a bone is hit, its shards would be creating their own Permanent Cavities.

While Temporary cavity might not have crused blood vessels (my sources tell differently, but they might be outdated ), inelastic parts will be broken. Liver is significatly rigid to be broken up - and release those toxic enzymes. Bones will be broken and will create their own, though quite small, Permanent Cavities.

A knife would do nothing like that. A knife stab wound is a mini- sword thrust wound. A knife slash wound is a mini- sword slash wound. In either case, the sword does more damage and will cause more bleeding.

Knives are slow blades. Bullets are high velocity projectiles. The cavities formed by those are very different.

 

[Daimyo]

Do not forget also that a relevant aspect of a melee weapon is the blunt trauma involved with the blow, wich may become significant as the weapon mass increases.
So while "knockdown" and "shock" effects are irrelevant with a small-mass projectile or knife, a huge maul or axe mass are enough to cause consistent damage. Effects may range to confusion, schock, knocking down (with a large enough weapon such as a sword or pole, wielder's body mass adds to weapon mass), to severe internal emhorrages, bleeding, bone crushing and fragmentation.

Also, with handguns and rifles your article correctly points out as most wound are aimed at the center of body mass. With melee weapons, wounds usually occurs on limbs, as survival instinct causes humans to submit arms and hand integrity to the safety of more important locations (such as torso, abdomen, and most importantly face and head). Forensics examinations of corpses subjected to phisical violence usually result in many collateral bruises and damage on forearms and hands as the victim tries to parry incoming blows.
This changes wounds dynamics and weapon lethality by much, as while with a small projectile penetration of body and abdomen are the most important aspect of a wound (you can't see nor parry them), limbs arteries and major vessels aren't so deep at all, and can be damaged more easily (expecially at joints) even with a significantly less penetration.
So the larger the cut, the higher the chance of severing an arthery, wich is a very rare happening with a small piercing hole, instead.

Lastly, penetration by itself causes very little shock, while a large while even shallow cut, impair human activities significantly. That's because pain innervation is maximized on superficial areas (dermal mostly) while internal areas are less and less innervated (to the point that some organs like intestine have no cut/pierce pain sensitivity, just stretching sensitivity), so a large external wound may not be enough to kill someone, but would be more than enough to put a person down on his knees. This was in fact a major issue during XVII/XVIIIth century when sabers where substituted by foils/epees in duels: the almost insignificant shocking power of piercing swords increased the number of "draw" duels, eg. duels where a contendant was wounded but kept fighting ending on death/severe wounding of -both- duelants.

As last words a sword, isn't just a larg bisturi that just cuts, it's rather a long edged -club-. So comparing cuts to piercing simpy doesn't take in account a sword's -mass- and that's absolutely incorrect.

 

[No name]

So, if i understand you correctly, you're trying to prove that daggers are as effective as swords damage wise?

No no, please! As i said before, i dont want to talk about the dagger issue anymore, since majority are insistent that daggers are useless. My point here was initially to inform NikktheTick on ballistic trauma. But as i have said, i realised this can extent to medieval weapons. So this little research is to tell people how a person actually dies. But then, at the end of it, i so called concluded that dagger wounds are better assuming the entire research was correct, just to remind people that stabs are actually better than slices, as so many of you often say that sword strikes, which deliver shallow but long slashes, are better than deep ones from dagger stabs.

And i don't care what your sources claim about bullets, having a 16" long 1" deep cut across your chest is going to take you out of combat if nothing else than for the sheer shock value of watching your blood and organs spill out onto the ground.

I'm really sorry Dalagga. I didnt mean this post to become another argument. But since you asked i'll do my best to clarify. As i have said, people often die from bleeding. In order to bleed effectively, we need deep cuts, as mentioned above, in order to reach organs inside and the blood vessels within. With shallow cuts, we can only scrap the surface, resulting in lesser, but still potent i admit, blood loss. But then, if you do not care for these sources, then you can never accept my view and this topic is rather useless to you.

And also it is going to be VERY hard to penetrate plate or chain armor with a dagger, and it doesn't have anywhere near the knockback factor that a sword would (it just doesn't have enough weight behind it).

Please be reminded that swords slash (unless you're talking about 2 handed ones, which more like chops). Because it is slashing, by physics it cannot do as much damage as a piercing dagger strike. I dont want to bring out formulas, but to simplify things, i'll give you an example. Take a piece of paper and hold it taut. Take a sharpened letter opener or a scissors and slash at it. Then try stabbing it. Which can cause a tear easier? I admit it isnt the most accurate, but yeah...

Also, to say it doesnt have knockback isnt really accurate. When stabbing with the knife, you cannot only consider the weight of the knife, but the person's body that drives it forward. To visualise, you take a dagger and point it at the wall. Then lean against it. It should cause quite alot of force. Swords cannot have a person's weight behind it. This one you have to use logic. You cant swing and stand behind it to push. Force is created from the circular motion the sword undergo in the swing, hence this is why powerful swords (2 handers) are heavy. I have the formula for it if you want.

You are neglecting the fact that swords can be used to stab as well, and daggers can be used to slash

Yes that is true BobG, but you must realise that swords are primarily used for slashes and not for stabs. Daggers are primarily used for stabs and not slashes. For this article, i refer to the usual usage of the weapons. But since you asked, i'll try to answer. The reason why a sword is not as good as a dagger, ironically, is its range. As i said before, stabbing with a sword is not as easy as a dagger. The length and its weight affects its accuracy in stabs. Visualise this. Take a bamboo pole (or whatever pole you have) and hold it at the end (Thats right, because most of the time people dont hold swords at the blade). Then from a reasonable distance, try to poke a flowerpot or any round edge part. I believe your pole will either not be able to hit the pot with enough force (since you have to adjust your strike), or it will deflect off the rounded part. Then repeat this with a letter opener. The pot represents the platemail (since most of you like to quote platemail during the dagger discussion), showing the sword's rather poor ability to stab.

But returning to my argument, a sword slash would certainly drop an opponent faster than a dagger slash.

As i said, a dagger is primarily used to stab and not to slash. Since it is not meant to stab, obviously it pales in comparison to a sword which is made for it. However, the issue here is whether a dagger stab is better than a sword slash.

As they proceeded to bleed profusely, they most likely would fall unconscious and then die, but it wouldn't shut them off like a switch, assuming the blow did not sever their spinal cord or something.

Yup. I forgot to add the time taken though. It says it takes 10-15secs for a person to die due to oxygen starvation after the destruction of the heart. Yes, its quite long, but bleeding is the only way to kill someone other than touching his central nervous system.

...piercing attacks cause blood loss, blunt attacks cause nervous system damage, and slashing attacks cause a bit of both.

I think its really interesting. Makes a whole new unique damage system which is unlike all other mediveal games out there. It'll make M&B really realistic.

EDIT: Really sorry if this post becomes another argument. I'm just clarifying some issues and not trying to restarting the dagger issue. But then...It'll be nice if daggers are improved

 

[Ryuta]

Great reserch No name.

I think many people critised it because he stated that knife and sword is equally effective. If you read his article carefully, it is equally effective. He didn't talk about the force behind the sword and knife. He imply that if the degree of penetration is same, damage done by sword and knife is more or less same (though sword is wider so it damages a bit more). This article about damage caused by penetration so it's better to ignore other facters like armour or force behind the sword and dagger etc.

Elastic nature of body was very true. Japanese sword/ dagger martial arts teaches you to twist as you stubbed, to prevent blade being caught by contracting mascle and cause more damage (actually they seemed to obsessed with it). and about slashing, even Samurai favoured stubbing over slashing. it is recorded that in Bakumatsu period, their favoured method is stubbing (hard to parry, penetrate deeper, need small room and motion), or cutting off fingers.

Also it's not in his article but self-digestion (I don't know how to call it in English) is important too. There's a Japanese Pro-wrestler called Rikidozan. He was stubbed his belly in Hawai. The wound was so small that he ignored it. But the wound actually punctured his intestine and caused infection and self-digestion. He died few days later.

Daimyo's argument is very reasonable to me. People died just because their heart stopped by shock. opposite happens too. There're lots of record that people disembowled himself (Seppuku in old style) lived quite long before they really died.

 

[Daimyo]

Also it's not in his article but self-digestion (I don't know how to call it in English) is important too. There's a Japanese Pro-wrestler called Rikidozan. He was stubbed his belly in Hawai. The wound was so small that he ignored it. But the wound actually punctured his intestine and caused infection and self-digestion. He died few days later.

Hey I liked your article, I like japan (see my nickname?). Good points, can you point me to some good net essays? I would read them very happily. By the way the self-digestion death you pointed out is an issue also on a very common ailment that affects modern people: ulcera, both gastric and (worse) gastro-duodenal. Chloridric acid, and enzymes like colecistokinine can digest whole peritoneal areas causing massive emhorragies and intoxication. Don't underestimate ulceras or elycobacter pilori people.

 

[No name]

Daimyo

Also, with handguns and rifles your article correctly points out as most wound are aimed at the center of body mass. With melee weapons, wounds usually occurs on limbs, as survival instinct causes humans to submit arms and hand integrity to the safety of more important locations (such as torso, abdomen, and most importantly face and head). Forensics examinations of corpses subjected to phisical violence usually result in many collateral bruises and damage on forearms and hands as the victim tries to parry incoming blows.

Nice observation. Very true, nothing to object to it. The only thing i can say is that in such cases, the victim acknowledges he cannot win the fight. As a result, he only focus on defending himself, hence parrying. I believe, though i was not involved in both, street fights and mediveal are different scenarios, where they strike more than blocking. Hence attacks are able to hit the torso. Also, on the battlefield, the soldiers are trained to aim at the chest as it would give the highest and fastest chance of incapacitating the opponent, compared to the limbs. Not to mention it is actually hard to hit the arms. In the chaos, you wont want or be able to hit his arms because it keeps flailing about.

Lastly, penetration by itself causes very little shock, while a large while even shallow cut, impair human activities significantly. That's because pain innervation is maximized on superficial areas (dermal mostly) while internal areas are less and less innervated (to the point that some organs like intestine have no cut/pierce pain sensitivity, just stretching sensitivity), so a large external wound may not be enough to kill someone, but would be more than enough to put a person down on his knees. This was in fact a major issue during XVII/XVIIIth century when sabers where substituted by foils/epees in duels: the almost insignificant shocking power of piercing swords increased the number of "draw" duels, eg. duels where a contendant was wounded but kept fighting ending on death/severe wounding of -both- duelants.

Another nice observation. Are you a bio student? But the thing is that, as i wrote in the post

However, during a fight, or the aftermath of a strike, the body releases adrenaline and other hormones to cause the body to ignore this, suppressed as it is irrelevant to survival. Perhaps the individual is unaware of his injuries, or strong will, instincts, and emotions would keep a horrendously injured man fighting, often seen on the battlefield or the streets.

In these situations, it is not sensible to stop an enemy by counting on him to give up due to pain. Fight or flight syndrome. Its unlikely he will stop fighting due to pain.

So while "knockdown" and "shock" effects are irrelevant with a small-mass projectile or knife, a huge maul or axe mass are enough to cause consistent damage. Effects may range to confusion, schock, knocking down (with a large enough weapon such as a sword or pole, wielder's body mass adds to weapon mass), to severe internal emhorrages, bleeding, bone crushing and fragmentation.

This reminds me of a CSI episode, where they explain how a person dies from a few well placed punches, like the constant rocking of the brain tears the dendrons attached to the skull, and internal bleeding in the brain. Are you sure you arent a bio student? i took adv bio for a while and i didnt realised this.

As last words a sword, isn't just a larg bisturi that just cuts, it's rather a long edged -club-. So comparing cuts to piercing simpy doesn't take in account a sword's -mass- and that's absolutely incorrect

I'm not sure what a bisturi is, but remember a sword (one handed) has not as much mass as a club (since it defeats its purpose).

NikktheTick

I know just one thing: they are NOT knives!!!

Hey, you got me wrong again. You told me what was ballistic trauma, and the effectiveness of temporary cavity. This is my reply to ballistic trauma. Nothing to do with knives. The only thing is that i realised this agrees with my idea that dagger wounds are deadlier than sword cuts and slashes. Hence i decided to expand it further by reading more about wounds.

The massive bleeding would result if a knife penetrates deep, which is unlikely if the target wears strong armor. A shallow knife wound when knife passes ythrough 1 chainmail ring would essentialy be a scratch.

Read my previous just above this. It explains why i feel a knife might actually harm better than a sword (one handed) slash on armours like plate and chain.

often, the length in diameter - not caliber - of the bullet since bullet often rotates in the body

Not sure what you mean by rotating in the body. I hope you dont mean it twirls (not sure how to explain too. Just imagine a DNA strand). Anyway, the rotation of the bullet does not significantly affect the wounds. The rotation of bullet is just to assist in the flight path to keep it straight.

inelastic parts will be broken. Liver is significatly rigid to be broken up - and release those toxic enzymes. Bones will be broken and will create their own, though quite small, Permanent Cavities.

...Thats what i was talking about in the dagger topic. The bullet is able to penetrate deep into the organs. I was comparing the deadliness of a bullet and a dagger in that both can pierce organs to cause physiological and physical damage, and saying sword (one handed) slashes cant reach in. You were the one saying that bullets deal damage due to the shockwave! Hey, dont you try to turn tables on me .

knife would do nothing like that. A knife stab wound is a mini- sword thrust wound. A knife slash wound is a mini- sword slash wound. In either case, the sword does more damage and will cause more bleeding.

Yeah, right. Again, my post regarding sword and knife stabs are written above. Knife stab wounds are not like sword stabs. A sword is slower due to its mass and the need to adjust your aim midstrike. Hence, it may not stab quickly enough to penetrate the armour. One the other hand, knife are faster, due to being lighter and easier to aim with, and you can put your weight behind it (see previous post), hence it can penetrate better. Oh and its not sensible to put your weight behind a sword stab as you cant recover fast enough if you miss, not to mention it is already hard to aim without going all the way

Knives are slow blades. Bullets are high velocity projectiles. The cavities formed by those are very different.

Hey, i never claimed that they are same. All i am saying is that deadly wounds are due to deep penetration that causes bleeding in the organs or major arteries. Hence, the knife is effective in this aspect. The other part about the cavities is for the bullet. I adapted this bleeding section to be about mediveal melees, so please dont misinterprete it.

Thanks

EDIT: Thanks Ryuta. Its comforting to know i am not alone in this world.

 

[Daimyo]

Nice observation. Very true, nothing to object to it. The only thing i can say is that in such cases, the victim acknowledges he cannot win the fight. As a result, he only focus on defending himself, hence parrying. I believe, though i was not involved in both, street fights and mediveal are different scenarios, where they strike more than blocking. Hence attacks are able to hit the torso. Also, on the battlefield, the soldiers are trained to aim at the chest as it would give the highest and fastest chance of incapacitating the opponent, compared to the limbs. Not to mention it is actually hard to hit the arms. In the chaos, you wont want or be able to hit his arms because it keeps flailing about.

Sorry, but you're plainly wrong. I can give you plenty of accounts on the examinations of the remains of bodies found on battlefields. Bone examinations reveal that most blows were inflicted on limbs and head, both as killing blows and as previously healed bone scars. We cannot know if they died because of abdomen evisceration that's true, but the quantity of limb wounds is astonishingly. Toracic cage wound were mostly caused by guess what: arrows, that aim at body mass just like any missile weapon or firearm.
Note also that you actually parry and deflect blows with your arms instinctively, not just when you're sure to die (shields are a much more common defense than armors), and as a proof you can find many Renaissance armor suits worn by less rich man-at-arms, mercenaries and guardsmen, that just covered arms or legs with plate mail, while body was protected with just a padded/riveted gambeson or hauberk.

Another nice observation. Are you a bio student? But the thing is that, as i wrote in the post

I'm graduating (laurea? dunno english term) as pharmacologist, I've interests in forensics and medicine, and I'm going to take another laurea (graduation) as anatomo-patologist. If bio = medicine, well yes I'm a bio student.

However, during a fight, or the aftermath of a strike, the body releases adrenaline and other hormones to cause the body to ignore this, suppressed as it is irrelevant to survival. Perhaps the individual is unaware of his injuries, or strong will, instincts, and emotions would keep a horrendously injured man fighting, often seen on the battlefield or the streets.

In these situations, it is not sensible to stop an enemy by counting on him to give up due to pain. Fight or flight syndrome. Its unlikely he will stop fighting due to pain.

True and wrong. Accounts about how much a wound and pain can impair during a fight can vary wildly. As a matter of fact it's mostly question of individual resistance to pain, while nobody debates that a piercing wound can be mostly ignored, while a bleeding cut severly impairs activity.
I give you some more concrete points about this.
Hunting arrows tend to minimize piercing shock in favour of better penetration, that's because the most reliable way to kill an animal is to let him bleed till death, as an instakill blow is very, very difficult unless you're using a large caliber rifle. That's because a piercing wound can be almost completely ignored because of the previously described "fight or flee" effect (wich in medical term is simply a strong stymulation of the ortosympatic system), but its bleeding effects will drag the creature down while you quietly stalk him.
Slashing cuts instead, while aren't usually deadly by themselves, not only overcharges pain stimulators as previously described, but often can slash through muscular fibers, cutting them and preventing further movements. Slashed muscular fibers also, are prone to massive oxidative damage, and if you keep using them, they can furtherly damage themselves, so there's a feedback nervous system that actually "blocks" them in case of damage. So many cuts can be very impairing, or not, depending on your adrenaline rush, but surely they are MUCH more dangerous in combat terms than a deep piercing wound, that will kill you later.

This reminds me of a CSI episode, where they explain how a person dies from a few well placed punches, like the constant rocking of the brain tears the dendrons attached to the skull, and internal bleeding in the brain. .

That CSI episode is a bit of exhageration of a real issue, but I won't go deeper as it's a very long non-related issue. What does count really, is that a massive axe/maul/sword blow possess enough force to throw you on the ground, or make you pass out because of shock. This with a knife just can't happen. Also head bones are so thick that with a piercing knife blow you may chip them, but unless we figure a Mike Tyson vs Ghandi scenario, it's very rare that you can pierce them down to the brain, with the addition of an helmet there's no chance at all. Some cranial bones tough are much less thick and can be pierced (nasals, lacrimals, ethmoid sphenoid), so a nose, mouth, throat or eye stab can reach the brain.

Are you sure you arent a bio student? i took adv bio for a while and i didnt realised this

Can you explain better? I'm no english and I didn't understand this sentence, sorry.

I'm not sure what a bisturi is, but remember a sword (one handed) has not as much mass as a club (since it defeats its purpose).

Bisturi... well sorry dunno english term then. It's that pen-like sharp knife used by surgeons. Anyhow what I meant is that a sword doesn't just "cut", it deals also massive blunt traumas, expecially when you're wearing an armor.

Read my previous just above this. It explains why i feel a knife might actually harm better than a sword (one handed) slash on armours like plate and chain.

Keep in mind that even some thick leather hides can nullify completely any cut or piercing effect of a sword or knife, so while a sword still knock foes down and crush bones a knife is plainly useless in this case. Only very heavy levers like axes, pickaxes or claymores can cut through chain or plate links and inflict slash/cutting wounds. That's the main reason why armors were so important: you do not need very much covering to stop things from tearing your flesh, and while bones do heal in time, cuts and perforation will kill you because of infection, and pathogens are a middle-age person worst nightmare.

often, the length in diameter - not caliber - of the bullet since bullet often rotates in the body

Maybe he meant that often small-caliber bullets often bounce inside the body as they hit bones. It's called ping-pong effect.


I wish to add a last thinking: what I can deduce from all the post you've written so far, seems to start from an erroneus basis. It looks like you keep comparing a master knife-fighter with a non-expert sword wielder. It's just a feeling, but have you ever seen someone fight competently with a sword/axe/mace, or you just know many godly knife-fighters and no master swordsmen (non-hollywood ones obviously)?

 

[Daimyo]

Sooooorry pressed quote instead of edit. Lol, removed the crap.

 

[Daimyo]

LOOOOOOL pressed quote instead of edit. Removed the crap. Sorry.

 

[okiN]

I love the triple post and the self-quoting. Good show.

 

[Jhaerik]

Rather tired of reading this stuff, but think I have a rather interesting point. Since medieval knives/dagger were a good bit longer than your average kitchen knife, and approched the length of a short sword(though not to ever be mistaken as one) does it really matter if it's stuck 90% through your body, or 250% threw it?


oxx{====>
10-14 inches

oxxx{======>
12-18 inches

(o)x{=========>
30-36 inches

(o)x{==============>
36-44 inches

(o)x{=================>
42-48 inches

(o)x{========================>
50-60 inches


Unless you weight 400lbs even a 10inch deep hole in you chest it gonna do as much damage as needed.

If ya don't believe me go grab a butcher's knife as hold it to your side, its gonna go in one side...and out the other.

 

[Daimyo]

Ow... well.. sure... hum.... nice drawings.

 

[No name]

does it really matter if it's stuck 90% through your body, or 250% threw it?

Not sure. Though the issue is about 15% and 50%, because slashes dont do 90% and stabs 250%