How much damage do bullets do?

[charliemilk 10]

Hi,

Is there any info anywhere on how many hit points each part of your body has and how much damage each type of bullet does. Also I think helmets make a difference, what about any other gear, for example does your backpack effect amount of incoming damage etc. Does range reduce damage?

Thanks.

[LordJarhead 1725]

Not that sure about those points got taking in account. I think there is no difference if you wear a helmet or not, a straight head shot will kill you. So most torso shots does. There is a slight chance to survive though (which seems to be a bit bigger then in A2) and arms and legs does less damage, foot and hand does the lowest kind of damage.

I think the biggest difference in hitpoint would be the kind of bullet you got hit with. A 5.56 or a 20mm :) There is much of a difference then.

Other than that, I dont think that clothes matter... not now at least. ACE3 might change that, hehe.

LJ

[viper[cww] 14]

As of this moment there are four, much the same as in previous titles, HitHead, HitBody, HitHands and HitLegs, all of which can be customised to present a certain amount of armour. Not sure on bullet damage as there isn't a full wiki on them.

Armour also does make a difference, Helmet/Vests all have an armour rating , while clothing does not.

[LordJarhead 1725]

;2346830']As of this moment there are four' date=' much the same as in previous titles, HitHead, HitBody, HitHands and HitLegs, all of which can be customised to present a certain amount of armour. Not sure on bullet damage as there isn't a full wiki on them.

Armour also does make a difference, Helmet/Vests all have an armour rating , while clothing does not.[/quote']

Oh cool, didnt know that ;)

LJ

[Hartmann 10]

Didn't they say they intend to have armour/helmets/gear have an effect on incoming bullets but that it's not implemented yet?

Does this mean it's at least partially implemented?

[LordJarhead 1725]

Didn't they say they intend to have armour/helmets/gear have an effect on incoming bullets but that it's not implemented yet?

Does this mean it's at least partially implemented?

I think it would be "easy" to make the damage related to clothes/gear. So it would be most likely a config thing, say what bullet does what damage with what clothes the person have. Could be implemented already. But even then, you wouldn't feel much of a difference I think. If they want to make it realistic at least, I think you wont notice when a gear/armor plate just saved your life and when not. You get hit or not. Dont know how military forces will be equipped by 2037 but if they would like they are today, what I think they will, then bullets will kill people. In most cases its just a matter of luck if a bullet penetrates or not ;)

Still, I could be totally wrong though

LJ

Edited March 19, 2013 by LordJarhead

[charliemilk 10]

Ah ok. Good to know .Thank you LordJarHead

[nimrod123 11]

there is a dynamic firing range in the missions forum, that gives feedback on damage done per shoot.

when i was playing round with it, 5.56 is ~0.6 damage, 6.5mm is ~0.8-1.1 and 7.62 is ~1.5-2.0. all these are at about 100m in the chest

also the pistols where ~0.2

since 1.0 total damage is a kill 7.62 is OHK

[-Coulum- 35]

there is a dynamic firing range in the missions forum, that gives feedback on damage done per shoot.

when i was playing round with it, 5.56 is ~0.6 damage, 6.5mm is ~0.8-1.1 and 7.62 is ~1.5-2.0. all these are at about 100m in the chest

also the pistols where ~0.2

since 1.0 total damage is a kill 7.62 is OHK

Neat, thanks for the info. What range was this at? because bullets loose speed and thus damage other distance in game.

I would prefer that bullets have wider range of possible damage. Even a 7.62 shouldn't have a 100% chance of incapacitation even in the centre of mass. There should always be a chance, no matter how slim that the guy keeps fighting (unless he is hit in the central nervous system of course). Would make close range fights much more intense IMO and make it so there is more of an advantage between rounds (ie. right now shooting a guy in the chest with a fifty or shooting a guy in the chest with the 7.62 always results the same, there is no advantage to the fifty)

[LordJarhead 1725]

Neat, thanks for the info. What range was this at? because bullets loose speed and thus damage other distance in game.

I would prefer that bullets have wider range of possible damage. Even a 7.62 shouldn't have a 100% chance of incapacitation even in the centre of mass. There should always be a chance, no matter how slim that the guy keeps fighting (unless he is hit in the central nervous system of course). Would make close range fights much more intense IMO and make it so there is more of an advantage between rounds (ie. right now shooting a guy in the chest with a fifty or shooting a guy in the chest with the 7.62 always results the same, there is no advantage to the fifty)

A shot with a 7.62 in the chest is always critical. Lungs, heart, arteries, this is all in a danger close area massed together. Saw soldiers who got shot in the neck with a 7.62 and survived with just a fleshwound but no consequential damages afterwards. At 100 meter I would be really carefully with 7.62. A shot in the chest might be a 15% chance of survival, but as I mentioned its always a matter of luck though. NO ONE can say how it would really be or not. Even asking soldiers who got shot will tell you that they were just lucky, saying them they were not because there is always a chance they will be very upset because of their friends they lost and those does not had such a "chance" maybe.

It was always a critically topic to discuss because no one can say how it would really be. ;) But yes, you are right. Even a 7.62 can have a chance of survival, the question is how much luck the dude would have :)

LJ

[max power 21]

Neat, thanks for the info. What range was this at?

Perhaps if you read the post you were quoting...

[Praelium 0]

I don't have the Alpha but I do want to add that distance makes a difference in Arma I and Arma II. The further the bullet travels, the less damage it deals.

[nimrod123 11]

A shot with a 7.62 in the chest is always critical. Lungs, heart, arteries, this is all in a danger close area massed together. Saw soldiers who got shot in the neck with a 7.62 and survived with just a fleshwound but no consequential damages afterwards. At 100 meter I would be really carefully with 7.62. A shot in the chest might be a 15% chance of survival, but as I mentioned its always a matter of luck though. NO ONE can say how it would really be or not. Even asking soldiers who got shot will tell you that they were just lucky, saying them they were not because there is always a chance they will be very upset because of their friends they lost and those does not had such a "chance" maybe.

It was always a critically topic to discuss because no one can say how it would really be. ;) But yes, you are right. Even a 7.62 can have a chance of survival, the question is how much luck the dude would have :)

LJ

yeah, 7.62 is around the same size as .308 (which you probally know) and that really ruins whatever it hits day. a ex-teacher fought in gulf war 1 and the balkans and made comments about that, he was a sniper and a proponent of the old school, use OHK man killers, instead of what he called the piddly shit (5.56) that was being introduced.

he was really clear though that one good hit from 7.62 was not something you shrug off, and every time he ever saw someone hit (look it was biology and someone said that bullets arn't that deadly :S) luck and timely medics needed to coincide for them to have a good chance

[rye1 21]

The study of wound ballistics would tell you that is wrong. You're giving a fine, clear quote, "7.62 in the chest is ALWAYS critical." This is bluntly wrong. It's not accounting for any variables or defining "in the chest" and "critical." Nothing about wound ballistics is one hundred percent but there are common trends and patterns to wound profiles created by the variety of 7.62 rounds out there fired from the variety of weapons at various distances too that you could possibly go off, and yet again that will tell you that center mass is deadly - that be it if you're shot center mass you lower expectancy of survival. But there are different types of wounds, different angles of attack.

If it's an angle of attack that only penetrates straight through soft flesh and exits, it's a simple through and through with a great chance of survival... as compared to a tumbling round that happens to hit the aortic arch, whilst fragments disperse through the heart and left lung. There you have two scenarios which could be classed as non-critical and critical. And you're right chance does come into it, as does medical care, as does [insert ten thousand variables]. I believe you cannot and will not be able to replicate this in ARMA.

Replicate 5.56 MK262 versus standard ball 7.62. MK262 has already proved itself in Afghanistan, you can't argue 5.56's pitfalls with that in town. So again, it's not a constant yes or no.

But here - some questions that need answered: Hit detection, is it improved over ARMA2? How so?

You have to have a fairly fast script, right? You don't want seven thousand lines of code for it to finally compute, "You're dead." You want it to be quick, second or even millisecond equations. Therefore you're left with simple calculations in comparison. There's not a lot of lee-way.

The key note is it always, ALWAYS depends on anatomical location penetrates and organs/part affected. They are two huge variables that don't go away.

[metalcraze 290]

Well if you were to insta-recover from many 7.62 hits in ArmA provided a medic treated you after each one - it would be way too much.

BIS wouldn't simulate you going to a hospital for a month to recover after a critical shot after all (because that's ridiculous from any gameplay perspective). So you get that abstract KIA. It's the same after all as being taken out of combat for its duration.

You wouldn't find many soldiers in combat with a fresh 7.62 bullet hole in their tummy. Besides we are talking 100m shot here.

Edited March 20, 2013 by metalcraze

[Guest]

All I will add is that in Arma it is still possible to shoot people in the foot/leg/arms until they die.

It's really annoying.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Maybe the addition of "crippled" limbs could be a very nice way to stop people from dying via arm/leg shots?

Shots to the arms, legs, hands and feet could render a soldier unable to aim/walk/run.

[nimrod123 11]

All I will add is that in Arma it is still possible to shoot people in the foot/leg/arms until they die.

It's really annoying.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Maybe the addition of "crippled" limbs could be a very nice way to stop people from dying via arm/leg shots?

Shots to the arms, legs, hands and feet could render a soldier unable to aim/walk/run.

so combat ineffective, and dead for all ingame intents? or actually worse then dead, as having a decent sized hole in your leg normally = crying and screaming, or at least swearing like a dockworker

[Guest]

so combat ineffective, and dead for all ingame intents? or actually worse then dead, as having a decent sized hole in your leg normally = crying and screaming, or at least swearing like a dockworker

If I was playing Arma online, and died when a 5.56mm round hit my hand, yes, I would be annoyed.

For severe wounds like gaping leg shots, falling unconcious or at least dying slowly whilst also being unable to walk/run would be a great comprimise.

I understand we need a balance, but getting shot to death via arms, hands, feet, or legs is getting stupid.

It is the same reason you can shoot a tank with an MG until it explodes.

Hit points I am afraid are very flawed.

[Droikka 1]

All I will add is that in Arma it is still possible to shoot people in the foot/leg/arms until they die.

It's really annoying.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Maybe the addition of "crippled" limbs could be a very nice way to stop people from dying via arm/leg shots?

Shots to the arms, legs, hands and feet could render a soldier unable to aim/walk/run.

Bro, think before you post.

Should you get shot, you would go to shock almost instantly. People rarely die from the actual bullet destroying their bodies, that'd require -atleast- a direct hit to the nervous system = through the back of your neck.

Pretty much everyone who get hit by a bullet will simply drop to the ground even if it does not penetrate your armor.

It's hugely unrealistic if someone can take even a single 7.62/ 5.56 that penetrates their skin and walk after it.

It's very realistic that you are incapacitated after getting shot. Should you not believe me, get shot in the leg by a rifle and tell me how much you kept shooting and fighting after it. :rolleyes:

Richie, almost every suggestion you have made has been based upon what you see on movies and video games.

[Guest]

Umm, ok?

I bet I could get several veteran to prove you wrong?

Watching one episode of "Our War" would show you.

One soldier got his upper bicep blown off by 7.62mm, kept fighting.

One soldier got shot in foot with 7.62mm, kept running, kept fighting.

One soldier got shot right through the chest, (bullet slipped behind armour), he didn't just crumple and die, he held on for hours before getting medical treatement, and despite losing most of his blood he survived for weeks after. Sadly he passed away, which really, really sucks, but unlike your slightly odd views, he didn't just crumple up and die.

And lol, show me a British or American soldier who simply gives up and stops fighting after being hit in the leg or arm, unless their limb got blown clean off, they are generally tough muckers and don't fall over and cry.

What planet do you live on?

[calin_banc 19]

No rounds penetrated his body armor, and he made it home with no permanent injuries. This happened in Kunar Province, Afghanistan.

*READ* From the cameraman:

" I got a hit a total of 4 times. My helmet cam died and i made it down the mountain on my own. I was also hit in the side of my helmet and my eye pro was shot off of my face. We were doing overwatch on the village to recon and gather intel. I was point heading down the face of the hill with the LT. when we got hit. the rest of the squad was pinned down by machine gun fire. I didn't start the video until a few mins into the firefight for obvious reasons. I came out into the open to draw fire so my squad could get to safety."

"A round struck the tube by my hand of the 203 grenade launcher which knocked it out of my hands. When I picked the rifle back up it was still functional but the grenade launcher tube had a nice sized 7.62 cal bullet hole in it and was rendered useless. "

This footage is part of an ongoing documentation of the war in Afghanistan.

So, there are a lot of stuff to take into consideration even new body armors like Dragon Skin -

,

This armor should take quite a few rounds before "it breaks".

[metalcraze 290]

Richie would it make it better if you get the "incapacitated" message when you were shot in the leg or foot with a bullet (which in ArmA doesn't always "kill" you) and the same result?

One soldier also shot 500 enemies during winter war 39-40. Keyword here is one.

Also I tried destroying M1A2 with MG once. Fired 2000 bullets at it. It didn't explode or take any damage for that matter :rolleyes:

[Droikka 1]

Umm, ok?

I bet I could get several veteran to prove you wrong?

Watching one episode of "Our War" would show you.

One soldier got his upper bicep blown off by 7.62mm, kept fighting.

One soldier got shot in foot with 7.62mm, kept running, kept fighting.

One soldier got shot right through the chest, (bullet slipped behind armour), he didn't just crumple and die, he held on for hours before getting medical treatement, and despite losing most of his blood he survived for weeks after. Sadly he passed away, which really, really sucks, but unlike your slightly odd views, he didn't just crumple up and die.

And lol, show me a British or American soldier who simply gives up and stops fighting after being hit in the leg or arm, unless their limb got blown clean off, they are generally tough muckers and don't fall over and cry.

What planet do you live on?

looool

I could show you a video on Battlefield 3 where I C4'd an enemy T-90 on the run... As I told you, all you know is what you see on television and games ^^

[Guest]

@ callin_banc, Exactly.

And at the guy I just replied too, would you die if I shot you 20 times in the hand with a 9mm pistol? Maybe your hand would be mush, but would you be dead?

This is my point. In arma anything from 1-3 shots to the hand = insta ragdoll death.

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ----------

looool

I could show you a video on Battlefield 3 where I C4'd an enemy T-90 on the run... As I told you, all you know is what you see on television and games ^^

Wow. You are a real piece of work.

[nimrod123 11]

right i'm leaving this alone now before the mods start nuking, and knowing what normally happens on these forums (the mods do pull the trigger) i would advise everyone else to calm down or leave this alone as well