Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

  • "A1pha" started this thread

Posts: 193

Date of registration
: Jan 27th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: New Zealand

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, February 7th 2012, 4:41am

Real weapons damage comparison

I have this video in my youtube favourites, and figure you guys might like to see (the differences ranging from a pistol through to the 50cal). All targeting the same drum of water.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ousE-vpGVUU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ousE-vpGVUU</a><!-- m -->" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some weapons used include:
9mm pistol, MP5, G36, Ak47, two bolt action rifles and the 50 cal. Worth a look for those of us who normally only see virtual guns firing..

Posts: 25

Date of registration
: Dec 29th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, February 7th 2012, 9:23am

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

That's very interesting but keep in mind that bullets perform completely differently in tissue as opposed to water, let alone a plastic drum with water. Additionally the thing probably only weighs 2/3 as much as a full grown man, and that's without combat gear.

What I found most interesting was that the torque produced by the .50 BMG round as it yawed actually caused the water barrel to spin around. This effect also occurs on live targets as is evident in hunting videos (also where you can see true scale of .50 BMG wounds on tissue.) Instead of sending the target "flying" like in Hollywood (thanks Rambo) they are spun.

  • "A1pha" started this thread

Posts: 193

Date of registration
: Jan 27th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: New Zealand

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, February 7th 2012, 9:55pm

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

Interesting, I didn't know that! Thanks -8D-

Sao

Moderator

(680)

Posts: 1,744

Date of registration
: Jan 5th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Ye Olde England

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 3:00am

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arh7K5vKSWQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arh7K5vKSWQ</a><!-- m -->

Watch it all.

The smaller the calibre of weapon the further it can penetrate through water, hence why high calibre leave massive exit wounds. Well 2 reasons.

1. bigger round+higher muzzle velocity = bigger vacuum+targets liver is 4 meters behind them.

2. They loose velocity through water rapidally (think trying to run through a pool rather than air) and when they loose velocity the rounds tumble, causing even bigger trauma.

Question is how off topic am I! Its just what the video reminded me of!

My Video


I used to be an asker like you, then I took a search bar to the knee....

Posts: 25

Date of registration
: Dec 29th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 5:20am

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

While caliber/diameter may contribute to depth of penetration, it does not always apply to how soon yawing occurs as 5.56mm/5.45mm are known to yaw very well in short ranges (5.45mm at any range), and very early in tissue, yet they are still very small caliber.

On a separate topic of energy, if we disregard wound profiles and simply look at penetration, .50 BMG will penetrate 90cm + of ballistic gelatin, meaning that on average it dumps ~28% of it's energy in a man sized target.
7.62x51mm Ball may dump ~39% of it's energy. M33 from an M107's barrel that is dumping some 2930 ft.lbs and M80 from an M14's barrel that is 990 ft.lbs.

Posts: 25

Date of registration
: Feb 14th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

6

Tuesday, February 14th 2012, 7:34pm

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=dyPuZYQ8ANg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fv ... yPuZYQ8ANg</a><!-- m -->

life lesson to be learned here: don't get shot by a .50BMG
I'm too cool for a signature.

Posts: 25

Date of registration
: Dec 29th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 10:42pm

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

Watermelons aren't people... they are nothing alike. If you want to get an idea of what .50 BMG will do to a person watch some hunting videos or look at hits in ballistics gelatin. Even a 7.62 will blow a watermelon apart....

Here's a hunting video that shows what a .50 BMG AMAX round will do (by the way, that round breaks apart in tissue like a hollowpoint, unlike .50 BMG Ball/AP which punch clean through.)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3Dokn_OS9twok" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_ ... kn_OS9twok</a><!-- m -->" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really, the round you don't want to get hit by is not necesarily .50 BMG, but rather .50 BMG Mk211 APHEI. That round is not *supposed* to explode within the torso of human beings, but it does at longer ranges, and has been known to split people in two.
This is usually the case with any kind of bullet that features explosive filler, as was the case with old German 7.92mm B-Geschoß High-Explosive rounds.

Posts: 158

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Nowhere near Firestorm, that's for sure!

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, April 11th 2012, 12:17pm

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

What is suspicious is that the guy ordering the shooter seems to be British...
Anyway, why don't we have proper mutilation in simulators? You could train soldiers to become accustomed to the damage different ballistics do to the human body before they go to war, so they don't projectile vomit (this happened when my father was in the Falklands. They killed an Argentinian platoon and half the other squad vomited at the sight when they arrived to rendezvous)
Platform: PS3
PSN: fustyferret148
(call me fusty over the headset)

9

Saturday, April 21st 2012, 1:36pm

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

I don't think any simulation no matter how well projected can fully prepare you for such an intense event. The fact that you are training during a sim, is by itself the biggest negating effect. Your brain only provides that amount of stress/adrenaline/etc to cope with the situation at hand.

Sure, a simulation might get you visually used to people getting blown in half, but that's just one of the many deep factors you have to take in account during such an experience. Unless you have a serious personality disorder, you can't overcome the psychological impact - and that's perfectly normal.

Not to mention you will be sick from the smell of rotting flesh alone. Like to see that implemented in a simulation.
14:19 KingSix: when you are peeing too much Haemoglobin, THAT's a serious issue
14:20 KingSix: ..
14:20 ToTheSun: chat killed

Aenonar

Data Analyzer

(2,796)

Posts: 7,863

Date of registration
: Dec 16th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 20

  • Send private message

10

Saturday, April 21st 2012, 3:08pm

Re: Real weapons damage comparison

Quoted from ""KingSix""

Not to mention you will be sick from the smell of rotting flesh alone. Like to see that implemented in a simulation.


Smellivision...


Mom: Wth are you doing?! -:s-
Kid: Killing stuff -:P-
Mom: Stop that right now! You're making the house stink! ->:[-

Quoted

(14:06:57) Riesig: I should stop now. People might get sig material again