Deadly Pistols

[Cpl Steiner]

My gut feeling is that BFC have modelled the trajectory of pistol rounds fairly accurately but not so well the marksmanship of the shooter under stressful conditions and of course the ability of the target to make the best use of available cover and/or present as small a target as possible. For instance, quite often in CMx2 I see soldiers standing "by" a tree but not really "behind" the tree. In CMx1, abstraction would have stepped in to sort things out but in CMx2, it's just polygon collision detection at work, from what I can tell.

[cool breeze]

Great video J.K. thanks! that was some great pistoleering! Even the examples of poor shooting technique weren't that bad of shots. They seemed like real oldschool farm boys with good pistol training.

[womble]

You're right, of course. But this rates as just an anecdote.

An anecdote, certainly. Others have done the testing. My anecdote is merely the extreme end of the probability scale, but that sort of thing should be rare and it simply isn't.

[John Kettler]

cool breeze,

You're welcome! Here's the first part, which shows the difference between target shooting and combat shooting.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

JK I am surprised.

but I think BFC may not be as out there on pistol marksmanship as people think. One surprise was that some of the positions used both hands.

In the training film series there is an example of dragging a cannon to a spot to blow up a roadblock which would have been fairly lunatic but US Army films were not necessarily going to be truthful more encouraging.

Why you would encourage your trained men to investigate a village armed solely with a pistol is beyond belief. Perhaps the sporting enemy would not use grenades or SMG's or snipe at range.

All the points made about stress are totally ignored so this film is no darn use other than what occurred in basic training. The actually ballistics of a pistol bullet are incredibly irrelevant compared to shaky sweaty hands and other phsyiological effects. Where is some better data?

I can quote you a tank commander shooting a sniper out of his tree with his Webley but that is from his tank and close too not roaming the battlefield. But that is anecdote : )

[John Kettler]

Childress,

I'm highly qualified to speak on suppression from pistol fire, having nearly had my head blown off in an incident while plinking with family and friends at small targets in a brook on a Marine base. Being focused on my shooting, I didn't realize Dad was behind me further up the bank. I found out he was when I stood up to reload--just as he fired his Hi Standard .22 pistol. That bullet was so close I felt the wind as it whipped over my head, missing me by about an inch. That will, as you say, concentrate the mind wonderfully. I was practically in shock and shaking like a leaf, Dad went white and looked as though he'd pass out, and all firing ceased abruptly. This rattled everyone so badly it basically ended the outing. This was one shot, not aimed at me specifically, as opposed to someone trying to kill me and blazing away with malice intent.

If a German's shooting at you, it's likely to be either 9mm (Luger or P38) 9 mm Kurz/.380 (Walther PPK) or .32 ACP/7.65mm (common European police caliber). If it's an American, it's going to either be a .45 ACP (M1911A1) or a .38 (6-shot revolver). No matter how you slice it, being shot at by someone wielding a high rate of fire weapon WILL command your attention.

In closing, I knew someone who could consistently hit steel animal silhouette targets with a PPK from 50 yards--while standing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_silhouette_shooting

The gun's good enough to do that, so it comes down to the shooter, his training and reactions.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LukeFF]

Just wait till you see the Commissars and what they can do with their Makarovs. It's not just the enemy who fear them...

Well, they won't be doing anything with them during WWII.

[womble]

I'm highly qualified to speak on suppression from pistol fire...

And it still isn't relevant to the point in question.

The gun's good enough to do that, so it comes down to the shooter, his training and reactions.

Always, always and for ever.

Range shooting != combat shooting. Combat shooting training != combat shooting.

Being shot at unexpectedly (because of dangerous range behaviour) when you've assumed you're safe != being shot at in a combat zone.

I remember reading about "Stress firing training", promulgated, at least as far as I knew, by Mas Ayoob, where the instructor would do things like tip recently fired (i.e. hot) brass down the back of the shooter's shirt to simulate the adrenaline surge of combat. Training "coolness under fire" is difficult.

Most troops spend most of their time shooting with their rifle, not their sidearm, which is decidedly secondary. Actual combat engagements, in a military context, involving pistols are as rare as hens' teeth, so most of the data availble comes from the law enforcement arena where handguns are the primary armament. Those early 90s figures quoted earlier in the thread are probably a bit out of date, as firearms training in the US for LEOs has been strongly informed by the lessons learned around that time (as military marksmanship training practice was informed by the lessons of WW2), and 20 years of improvement in practice should surely have returned some dividends. Not that that gives a better picture of the likelihood of pistol hits in WW2, except that it may well have been worse.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

There are two military axioms which immediately come to mind. The first is "You train the way you fight." The second is "The more you sweat in training, the less you suffer in war." The purpose of military training is to so deeply engrain the desired responses and behavior that in those moments of extreme stress and even mortal terror, with explosions around him and bullets whistling, men dying or being struck down, the soldier will still be able to carry out his military tasks. The most fundamental of these is shooting quickly and accurately.

War is seldom ideal. There is never enough of what you need, let alone what you want. Weapons break down, run out of ammo, supplies don't arrive, etc. The mission continues, even when things are far from optimal. How not optimal can they get? I saw a former SEAL interviewed who said "If I have no other weapon, I'll use my teeth." He meant it!

Would the Army recommend urban combat while armed solely with a .45? Hardly. Might such a situation arise? Absolutely. I personally wouldn't want to try to hold off a determined NVA charge with only a pistol, but one GI managed to drop 14 AK-47 wielding warriors threatening to overrun the landing zone. In CMFI, a mortar's minimum range is a given number, and that's it. Real life doesn't necessarily work that way. This man, multiply wounded and bleeding, hand elevated and fired an 81mm mortar well inside its minimum range. And that's not even in the citation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Donlon#Medal_of_Honor_citation

http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_donlon.htm

I believe you'll find this very much on point. See particularly The Death of a Jeep. Why? Urban combat vs. a sniper while armed solely with .45s!

http://www.sightm1911.com/1911-Myth.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/downloads/215919.pdf

See page 14 as to the US army view on hit probability under stress. BF tank crews laugh at these figures : )

[dieseltaylor]

I believe you'll find this very much on point. See particularly The Death of a Jeep. Why? Urban combat vs. a sniper while armed solely with .45s!

http://www.sightm1911.com/1911-Myth.htm

Jeep story. Unbelievable comes to mind.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

Using your chart and the stressed firing curve, I'm seeing a hit probability at 50 meters in excess of 0.8. In my view, the plots show that stressed firing is most affected by range, as a result of greater aiming errors.

A most informative and well written study, which I hope BFC will take note of in any upgrades to CMSF. I had no idea we'd fielded a radically improved 5.56 cartridge.

If you didn't like the Jeep story, then be sure to not read the one where a guy shot a Zero pilot in the head--while himself dangling from a chute, and killed him!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

If you didn't like the Jeep story, then be sure to not read the one where a guy shot a Zero pilot in the head--while himself dangling from a chute, and killed him!

How did he know that he killed the pilot?

[GreenAsJade]

It's been a fascinating skim read about pistols. I was most interested, though, to read that this is the reason why my half-squad of inf that I sent to dispatch a tank crew failed so miserably!

GaJ

[Fenris]

Sorry but I too kind of wonder at comments relating to range shooting being compared in any way to combat shooting with handguns.

At ranges of less than 50 meters, with pistols it'd be more like 10 meters, I find it very difficult to believe that a combatant is going to pause long enough to raise their arm, sight down their weapon and sqeeze off an aimed shot on a regular basis.

IMO pistol fights being so close are more about self preservation than accurate shooting. They are about diving for cover whilst shooting as fast as possible in the general direction of the other guy.

See the stats for the police usage of handguns posted above. I find those far more believable. Units with handguns in CM should be ok for very short range suppression but they shouldn't be killing squads on such a regular basis, especially at anything more than 15 meters. Edit - add to which troops with handguns are usually not front line infantry. Tank crews, pilots etc usually had only basic training on the sidearm and put 20 rounds on the range every once in a while. They are not infantry combat specialists.

-Fenris

[cool breeze]

On the other hand most of the troops who use hand guns in game do so since its their only weapon, so I'd expect them to do most of their shooting practice with handguns, so they should be, for their experience level, about as good at pistol shooting as the riflemen are at rifle shooting. It would be cool if the pixeltruppen got a primary weapon shooting skill and an other weapon skill. So when a MG gunner pulls out his pistol (his secondary) he not as good at it as an officer with only a pistol. or when a tank crew loots a Garand he wouldnt be as good with it as a riflemen. edit to fix funny typo

[Brindlewolf]

Had this on the American campaign.Lost both a Stuart tank with the crew bailing and an MG.Brought the tankers up to my main body of troops once they had recovered and found they had picked up the MG and a few rifles.Sent straight to the front line again.First time i've ever seen a crew do this.

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Read the story at the link I gave for a guy named Baggett. Short version--bails out of B-24 over Burma. Zero shoots up guys in their chutes, really POing him. It makes a pass at him, after which he draws his weapon and plays dead, hoping it won't shoot him before he gets his slim chance. The Zero returns, then slides into position below him, hanging on a stall, for a go at him. He had masked the weapon down his offside leg, brings it up, fires four rounds into the cockpit, one of which hits the pilot in the head. Evidence includes statement by a Japanese colonel to a captured fighter group commander that the pilot was thrown clear of the wreck when the plane hit. He was examined and found to have taken a bullet in the head. There were no U.S. fighters in the area, and had the plane simply stalled, it was high enough to recover, but it didn't. Had a bomber's .50 hit him earlier in the head,he wouldn't have had a head, hence couldn't have been hit by bomber defensive fire. Baggett reports putting four rounds into the cockpit. I quote Sherlock Homes "When you have eliminated whatever is impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."

Regards,

John Kettler

[Yeknodathon]

Oh my, Sir Arthur Conon Doyle, what have you done?

[womble]

On the other hand most of the troops who use hand guns in game do so since its their only weapon, so I'd expect them to do most of their shooting practice with handguns...

I'd expect them to do most of their shooting practice with tanks. And to spend more of their time making sure their tank is in running order, so they have little or no time to practice with small arms at all. They'd also have zero-to-no actual combat experience, whereas a Veteran (say) rifle team has, by definition been involved in some ground pounder action, come under fire (outside an armoured skin) and possibly (probably) even sustained casualties to the unit or taken minor wounds personally.

...so they should be, for their experience level, about as good at pistol shooting as the riflemen are at rifle shooting.

Even if that were the case, and I seriously doubt it, pistols are still rubbish compared to rifles at the ranges we see in CM. 8m is 26ft, and the current "doyennes" of pistol combat (LEOs) reckon 20 ft is effective range in combat conditions for a handgun. They'll "reliably" reach across a room; after that it's a pure lottery.

It would be cool if the pixeltruppen got a primary weapon shooting skill and an other weapon skill. So when a MG gunner pulls out his pistol (his secondary) he not as good at it as an officer with only a pistol. or when a tank crew loots a Garand or tries to use any weapon other than his tank he wouldnt be as good with it as a riflemen.

There, fixed that for ya.

[LukeFF]

And there already are a couple of weapon specialty skills modeled. One of them is "gunner" (I've seen these for tank gunners and infantry machine gunners). Other infantry ones include "marksman" (for snipers) and "anti-tank."

[womble]

And there already are a couple of weapon specialty skills modeled. One of them is "gunner" (I've seen these for tank gunners and infantry machine gunners). Other infantry ones include "marksman" (for snipers) and "anti-tank."

I wonder if "Asst" confers any prowess in marksmanship. You'd half expect the "experienced" NCO to be better at putting lead on target than the rest of the team; maybe a modifier based on the squad's/the Asst leadership score. I wouldn't think the same of "Leader" because, although many "Leaders" are sergeants, many are also wet-behind-the-ears Looies and majors who might never have seen the pointy end of a firefight...

[John Kettler]

cool breeze,

Here's an official German tank training film, illustrating the use of infantry weapons for not only defending the tank, but also to kill the defenders.

Here's a period article showing a Stuart crew undergoing high tech sim training for the Thompson--before going to the firing range.

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/WW2_US_Army_Tank_Training

Dismounted crew drill for M36 TD (Item 23) Note the drill explicitly requires each crew member to secure his personal weapon, that is, take it with him when dismounting. And that would typically be a what?

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/m36-motor-carriage/crew-drill-gun-motor-carriage.html

Oda Miller of the 3rd AD says he did his basic training in the 20th AD at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. (Basic training is basic training. It's the Army! Everybody goes through it! Tankers just have a much longer and more technically intricate training program following basic, but all who go through basic training learn the same core skills, such as proper use of the pistol, rifle and hand grenades). His combat experiences are harrowing.

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/memoirs.pages/miller.htm

I do notice here, in looking at the M5,M4, M24 and M26 small arms a rapid progression to more and heavier crew armament. A Sherman has an SMG, but later tanks have provisions for as many as 5 (or 4 SMG and 1 M1 carbine), but the men still sport pistols.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810463/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-1

Given the above, are you really prepared to argue these men don't have solid training in using these weapons?

womble,

The average cop never fires the service weapon in an entire career, but the police combat pistol training includes 50 yard shooting, as seen here. (Fair Use)

What is the Course of Fire?

A PPC "1500" match consists of 150 rounds fired at a black silhouette target from 7, 15, 25, and 50 yards. The sport combines accuracy with speed in a variety of shooting positions. The shots are fired standing, sitting, prone, kneeling, and from behind barricades to simulate the conditions an officer might face on the job. The "Duty Pistol" match also consists of 150 rounds, but fired from 3, 5, 7, 5, and 25 yards, and using only a semiautomatic pistol issued to officers by a Canadian police force.

http://www.colwoodppc.com/introtoppc.htm

This is one you'll like, but I feel it's appropriate to point out that most police encounters are in urban or semi urban areas, whereas WW II combat primarily took pace in more rural ones, where LOS is considerably greater. Restated, the very nature of police work and the operational environment is such that the engagements must occur at close-spitting range, which, I firmly believe, biases the police engagement range stats to a considerable degree.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/combat.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

c

Given the above, are you really prepared to argue these men don't have solid training in using these weapons?

Nobody said they didn't get training. It's the experience most of them never got, experience relative to footsloggers in killing the other guy with your personal weapon from outside your tank. Training has to be maintained to remain effective.

The average cop...

Isn't the one doing the studies, and doesn't contribute to the stats.

...never fires the service weapon [in earnest - Ed] in an entire career...

But does have to maintain certain standards of range shooting, so when they are unfortunately called upon to exert lethal force, they will be better prepared for it than someone who did a 6 week general fighting course 6 months ago and has hardly fired the thing since. How often did a tanker recruited in March '44, landed on the beaches in June and fighting to the Oder get rechecked on his pistol target shooting? Did the average tanker fire their pistol at a German? How many range rounds did they even get the chance to expend? Perhaps it's a myth that dilligent cops keep up with their handgun training.

...but the police combat pistol training includes 50 yard shooting...

Hello? Range shooting?

This is one you'll like, but I feel it's appropriate to point out that most police encounters are in urban or semi urban areas, whereas WW II combat primarily took pace in more rural ones, where LOS is considerably greater. Restated, the very nature of police work and the operational environment is such that the engagements must occur at close-spitting range, which, I firmly believe, biases the police engagement range stats to a considerable degree.

So even at really close range they can't hit the broad side of a barn. If the ranges were longer, the percentage hits would be even lower. Those stats were quoted earlier in the thread, BTW.

Obviously there will be exceptions; the guy who's carried a pistol since he was 12 and fired 200 rounds a day as a hobby, or who somehow transferred from an infantry unit that fought in Sicily, or has had some other close up sighting of the elephant. But that's not a reason to model the base behaviour of dedicated vehicle crews on those exceptions.

I say "dedicated" because halftrack and truck drivers are often considered part of the squad, and are as much riflemen as the rest of the squad.

[acrashb]

Perhaps it's a myth that dilligent cops keep up with their handgun training.

"diligent cops" do, but such are few and far between - because they are unlikely to need lethal force at any point in their career. This is a reasonable attitude. Some police - either ERT / SWAT or just the more-motivated ones - do get a lot more training, either on the job or after hours with personally-purchased ammunition.

I have posted before that true proficiency with a pistol takes about 100 rounds of structured practice each week for about a year ( I could go on about unconventional shooting positions like urban prone, learning how to reload a pistol with one arm disabled, learning the several methods of shooting while moving laterally, etc.). Even holding a pistol well enough to allow it to reliably self-load instead of malfunctioning (google "limp wrist malfunction") is a challenge for some people - short or tall, weak or strong. The impact point (yes, it does change) at different ranges and knowing it instinctively is another skill to be learned - so that one can hit a small target (think 8"x8") instead of a large, standing object.

It is not credible to think that a WWII tanker, or artilleryman, would do anything like this (nor would they have an instructor nearby to provide structure and correction, nor would the quartermaster issue enough ammunition). As someone else pointed out, they have much more effective weapons systems to practice on.

One-off stories aside (the links JK provided are just examples of pistol-launched "golden BBs"), pistols are reasonably effective as close-range, last-ditch defensive weapons. That's it.