Headshots and army helmets.

[MRMIdAS2k]

In FPS all head shots should be one hit kills IMO, ok it might not always kill you but it will take you out of the game.
Same for limb shots.
Body shots, ok take a few maybe.

Why would a shot to the arm or leg be fatal?

Apart from the MAJOR artery in your leg?

Or the chance of bleeding to death, infection, shock, the bullet ricocheting off your bone and into something more valuable?

 

[MrNeil]

Im sure bullets wont just hit the helmet, compress and then bounce away from a direct hit but im sure that at some angles ricocheting occurs and is probably what they want to increase the probability of happening.

"Bouncing" is the un-technical term used by RMP and squaddies. It means a ricochet - which occurs due to the shape of the bullet and angle that it hits a target

Just to clarify.

Cpl. Fairbairn

 

[Jamash]

A helmet seems to work for this guy [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0xFSNxbHgg&feature=related].

Ah the French, you've gotta love 'em lol.

Although the bullet probably has nowhere near the armour piercing properties of modern firearms featured in most FPS games.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

If you want realism in a game then all direct shots to anywhere other than kevlar-protected areas should count as fatal.

Ya but then you have to factor into realistic recoil, and aiming, and who likes playing American Army? I mean really?

Is kinda boring.

 

[Robert0288]

As someone said earlier bullets do tumble, and if your VERY lucky the bullet can hit on an angle that will deflect almost all of its energy upward. Therefore sparing your melon from being popped

 

[Zixinus]

While I am not sure about the specifics I am pretty sure a WWII era army helmet could contain a grenade blast without completely breaking. Helmets have most likely been improved since then.

Yes, helmets can be made strong enough that it reaches a point where its futile to make them stronger because the bullet's force would snap someone's neck.

Doesn't necesarly mean that such helmets are always made and given.

Remember that it isn't jut penetration that makes a bullet dangerous but that it has allot of force centered into one small point. A helmet may stop a bullet but it's force will still be given, if distributed trough a larger area. If not a broken neck, it can still cause a concussion or black out or something.

The head is the most sensitive part of the human body.

A grenade has more force than a bullet.

That depends on how you define "force". A granade indeed has more energy, but practically, it is weaker then a bullet. A granedas aren't dangerous because of their explosions or blastwave: they are dangerous because most granedes have sharpnel that are at least as powerful as some bullets, not to mention hot. That's the true power of granedes, something that allot of game developers ignore.

Although the bullet probably has nowhere near the armour piercing properties of modern firearms featured in most FPS games.

Fire arms don't have armour piercing properties: bullets do. Firearms only fire bullets. You could technically fire an armour-piercing bullet from a century old rifle, if it fits.

 

[Altorin]

Enemy at the Gates (I think that's the movie, the Sniper Movie with Jude Law) has a scene in it that shows quite clearly that combat helmets do not stop sniper rounds.

And while the helmets have improved since that era, sniper rifles have improved much more.

 

[Birras]

Why would a shot to the arm or leg be fatal?

Apart from the MAJOR artery in your leg?

Or the chance of bleeding to death, infection, shock, the bullet ricocheting off your bone and into something more valuable?[/quote]

Touche, I was tired at the time of posting, so I didn't think to factor in things such as infection, bleeding out, or shock.

 

[Altorin]

Why would a shot to the arm or leg be fatal?

Apart from the MAJOR artery in your leg?

Or the chance of bleeding to death, infection, shock, the bullet ricocheting off your bone and into something more valuable?

Touche, I was tired at the time of posting, so I didn't think to factor in things such as infection, bleeding out, or shock.

how did you think people died from bullets?

 

[yourkie1921]

By shots to other areas of the body.

If you want realism in a game then all direct shots to anywhere other than kevlar-protected areas should count as fatal.

When you're hit you go down, you're winded, wounded and your mental state immediately deteriorates. In the real thing, in standard combat when you take a round you're considered out of action unless the situation dictates otherwise.

When a bullet pierces your skin, the force and damage to your body mixed with adrenaline causes you to go into shock. When that happens you're more or less incapacitated.

I think it's agreed that no one except the most hardcore of players............................ Ok those who are even more hardcore and skilled than the best FPS gamer ever to exist so far want that level of realism. There was a game made like that once and it sucked.

 

[Mirika_the_warrior]

A 30 cal variant has a chance of penetrating a wwII steel helmet, a modern composite helmet only increases your chance of surviving a headshot; it does not guarantee it

 

[RufusMcLaser]

Edit2: And you know, I'm looking for some evidence to prove this and all I can find is pictures DISPROVING it. Wish I would've kept some of those pictures now.

I can confirm your results. About seven years ago I had a chance to watch a small arms effects video, in which some military police (Security Police, actually, the USAF variety) blazed away at various objects with various small arms. The Kevlar helmet stopped some- but not all- 9mm rounds fired from an M9, and didn't do anything to 5.56 and 7.62 rounds but put a tumble on them.
FYFI, I recall the standard-issue (pre-OIF) Kevlar vest stopping a few 9mm rounds and not much else. It was a fun video to watch- they shot everything from cinder block walls to a light armored security vehicle using the M9, M16A2, M249, M60, and Mk19. Would that my job had such moments.

 

[MrNeil]

Hey - I'm only saying, y'know? For those people that shall whinge about how unfair and unrealistic it can be.

*covers own arse and runs away*

 

[The Wooster]

Most of these tests are done with bullets hitting the helmet 'head on' which kind of destroys the point of the helmet. The shape of a helmet is designed to cause bullets to slide away from the head across a curved surface, not just cause them to bounce straight off it. If you took s big round to the head and it bounced straight off your helmet the sheer blunt force trauma would probably crack your skull if not break your neck.

 

[Northery]

Actually we've tried this at the base and the current helmet ACH used by the US army can only stand a .45 caliber from a safe distance. The problem is that even a WW2 M1 Garand can go thru it like butter. Although i've heard of scenes where a soldier has been shot in the head but the angle of trajectory was so steep that all it did was just take the helmet off.

 

[teh know-lejj]

I thought it was supposed to protect against grazes and ricotes (however you spell it). I don't think it would be able to withstand a direct hit to the head.