Explosion damage is weak?

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

... and according to a sniper I saw on the History Channel (indeed, a sniper who had a rather notable kill), sniper rifle rounds deal more physical trauma at medium range than at short range. Soldiers are hardly reliable when it comes down to the physics of how they kill people (although they do tend to be reliable when it comes down to methodology).
In general, explosions don't kill people. It's the aftereffects (shrapnel, collapsing structures, etc) that kill people. Well, unless you're really, really close to the explosion (or it's really, really freaking big).

Not nessacarily unreasonable. It depends on the exact dynamics of the system, and how effectively it can transfer energy from the bullet into generating lethal wounds. If say it becomes more likely to tumble in a person after 300 yeards then that will increase lethality.

This is pretty much lost on the resolution of gurps though because it would do less dammage but have a higher wound modifier.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Kraydak

Because he was my advisor:

www.pppl.gov/colloquia_pres/WC25MAR09_EBlackman.pdf

Note the use of "scaled monkey data". A decent amount of our "data" comes from a guy a few decades back slamming monkey heads into walls and trying to measure the resulting decrease in their cognitive abilities.... Draw your own conclusions.

Honestly, as much as many of us would like to, we just can't go around collecting data by slamming people's heads against walls and trying to measure the resulting decrease in their cognitive abilities. ;)

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by blacksmith

Not nessacarily unreasonable. It depends on the exact dynamics of the system, and how effectively it can transfer energy from the bullet into generating lethal wounds. If say it becomes more likely to tumble in a person after 300 yeards then that will increase lethality.

This is pretty much lost on the resolution of gurps though because it would do less dammage but have a higher wound modifier.

I fail to see how something that hits with enough force to destabilize the round (thus leading to tumbling and/or fragmentation) at 300 yards would be incapable of doing so immediately after leaving the barrel (unless we're talking about gyrocs). I'm fairly confident that the whole "hitting so quickly it goes through without a chance to tumble" concept is a myth - bullets don't measure tumbling in terms of time, but rather in terms of flesh penetrated. Note this concept has come up before on these fora.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

I fail to see how something that hits with enough force to destabilize the round (thus leading to tumbling and/or fragmentation) at 300 yards would be incapable of doing so immediately after leaving the barrel (unless we're talking about gyrocs). I'm fairly confident that the whole "hitting so quickly it goes through without a chance to tumble" concept is a myth - bullets don't measure tumbling in terms of time, but rather in terms of flesh penetrated. Note this concept has come up before on these fora.

I am not saying it would. I am saying that I can imagine how dynamics might play that kind of roll.

[Bruno]

This thread both underlines and in a sense explains the whole "problem" our group has had with Explosive Fireball (to whit - they're sort of expecting a Hollywood film explosion involving 60 kg of gasoline, a la 1e AD&D fireball, not a crappy 1700's to WWI era pure concussion hand grenade).

It also suggests a simple remedy for improving lethality without just dialing up the damage dice - remember that explosions without a frag component can still cause fragmentation damage if the material at ground zero is fragmentable.

In a TL3ish Fantasy game there's enough metal armor, metal buckles and fasteners, and metal equipment around that I would feel entirely comfortable throwing on 1d or 2d of "incidental" frag in most situations.

Another option would be to "retcon" on a flat 1d frag effect onto the spell.

"Downside" to both these solutions is that it becomes more hazardous to the wizard and his companions - but since I remember the 1e AD&D fireball and it's hillarious volume based backblast, I really don't mind that much...

[nanoboy]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Well, body armor stops fragmentation damage, but the thing is military helmets aren't like motorcycle helmets and cushioned against impacts. They add ~5 pounds to your head, putting even more load on your neck. So you get situations where your head might be tossed around and they make it worse. so yes, good body armor is leading to brain injuries, but that's because it made the enemy switch to high explosives and the armor for your head is only really designed to stop shrapnel.

Well, I think the point is that you can survive nearer blasts, because the shrapnel doesn't penetrate the body armor. Thus, most of the damage is from the concussive force which seems to affect the brain a lot. As I understand it, more survive explosions because of vehicle armor as well. I doubt that does a lot to stop the concussive force of the explosion either. A soldier in a vehicle may get rolled around a lot, too, when the explosion is powerful enough to lift or roll over a vehicle-- something that is not unheard of.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

Thus, most of the damage is from the concussive force which seems to affect the brain a lot.

It could also be from whiplash injuries and being knocked about, both of which are also reasonably capable of shaking up the brain. However, we're talking levels of force that will straight-up kill unprotected targets. Plus, bear in mind that a hand grenade doesn't have a lot of charge -- an MK3A2 offensive (concussion) grenade has a charge of 8 ounces of TNT (8d is about right, that's a bigger charge than I realized; a regular frag grenade should be more like 6d) and an estimated casualty radius of 2m. Given that 'casualty' does not mean 'kill', it means 50% of exposed troops will become casualties (probably any major wound is adequate to count), the damage results in GURPS actually seem pretty reasonable.

[nanoboy]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It could also be from whiplash injuries and being knocked about, both of which are also reasonably capable of shaking up the brain. However, we're talking levels of force that will straight-up kill unprotected targets. Plus, bear in mind that a hand grenade doesn't have a lot of charge -- an MK3A2 offensive (concussion) grenade has a charge of 8 ounces of TNT (8d is about right, that's a bigger charge than I realized; a regular frag grenade should be more like 6d) and an estimated casualty radius of 2m. Given that 'casualty' does not mean 'kill', it means 50% of exposed troops will become casualties (probably any major wound is adequate to count), the damage results in GURPS actually seem pretty reasonable.

GURPS damage is definitely reasonable. As for the whiplash injuries and so on, those are the effects of the concussive force. Most of the deaths and injuries in Iraq are from large explosive IEDs, not grenades, though.

[Bruno]

I think some of the civilian confusion about IEDs (and explosions in general) can be blamed on Hollywood - every explosion requires a gallon milk jug of gasoline thrown into the mix to make it look "explosiony". :D

[Libris]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Honestly, as much as many of us would like to, we just can't go around collecting data by slamming people's heads against walls and trying to measure the resulting decrease in their cognitive abilities. ;)

Shame.

I had quite a few candidates on my list... :)

To be fair collecting data about it hadn't occured to me.