War movies

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The "SMG SHOULD fired from the hip" comment might be correct. I only have training on the Swedish SMG, which was introduced in 1945, and that is best fired from the shoulder. But the slightly older models used in the war might be different.

But the throat cutting method you describe is NOT what you see in the movies.

Thats of intrest, to save me the trouble of looking it up, is the same munition calibre used today as in 1945?, for instance the US tommy gun was a .45 while todays munitions are generally much smaller, so it depends on what MG we are talkin about, Schmiser in german use ha d astrap over the shoulder to keep it on hand for quick use, it had a buckle attatchment to attach to your belt, thus providing waist and shoulder restraint to ease accuracy by resitricting recoil, of course accuracy is all relative, you dont want 60 rounds in a 4 inch spread when your after 6 people over a dozen yards dispoersion erea.

Yep the cenures would not alow the actual methods to be show for fear of copy cat use for instance.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

You need to cut the windpipe, too, severing the artery is not enough. I read somewhere that it's better to stab the knife into the neck and cut outward - you don't run into the problem of failing to cut through (from outside going in) the tough cartilage of the voicebox, and blood fills the windpipe cutting off any sound.

In a movie you see soldiers close together - so they can be in the shot. IRL infantry moving, say on patrol, would be spread out, so one well-placed grenade won't take them all out.

As far as one shot, one kill - that's for snipers.

Severing the two carotid arteries would be sufficient. I've seen enough people "code" that I can say with authority that when circulation to the brain stops a person looses conciousness. When myocardial ischemia causes abnormal electrical activity in the myocardium fibrillation of the ventricles may develoip causing cessation of forward circulation. Loss of conciousness occurs in a few seconds or less. The same would occur if you cut the arteries to the brain. If you deprive someone of air they may retain conciousness for a minute or so, until the oxygen pressure in their vascular system falls too low to sustain brain metabolism. If someone is shot through the heart they may stay concious for several seconds to minutes because blood pressure doesn't fall to a critical low for a while. The heart usually continues to beat but some of the blood in the ventricles is pushed out into the pericardial space instead of going out the Pulmonary and Aortic arteries. The collection of blood in the pericardium eventually presses on the heart preventing filling. When the heart can no longer fill between beats effective circulation ceases.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Severing the two carotid arteries would be sufficient.

To cause death, yes, but not quickly enough to prevent a potential alarm from going out, for which cutting the neck including windpipe would be better. Of course, in a movie it's more dramatic to have someone go up and take out a sentry with a knife. IRL if possible you'd want to do it at range with a suppressed weapon.

Originally posted by Nickiow
The purpose of the head pushed forward is to relax the muscle and tendons making it easier to sever, of course it makes it less easy to insert and cut outwards after haveing done so...

Ah, so pulling back the head to expose the throat is another cinematic technique.

Originally posted by Nickiow
Have you read Marshal`s acount of combat mechanics through post combat interviews?, or Grossmans "On Killing" http://www.killology.com/
soldiers have always tended to bunch up despite the point it makes them an acctractive target by doing so, there is some instictive drive to do this deep in human pysh that despite actual observation of the combat veterens and all the training to prvent it still fails in large measure to prevent.

No, I haven't. But troops bunching up due to a psychological need to seek comfort in the close proximity of one's companions in a life-threatening situation is different from all the actors needing to be in the shot.

On a side note, "killology" sounds stupid as a word.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

To cause death, yes, but not quickly enough to prevent a potential alarm from going out, for which cutting the neck including windpipe would be better.

No, I'm fairly sure that loss of conciousness is as close to instantaneous as you could imagine. As I've said before, I've had enough experience in hospitals to know what happens to a person when forward circulation ceases. If you're in a CCU unit tended a patient and the rhythm on the monitor changes to ventricular fibrillation or asystole they don't have time to talk about it - they go down immediately without a word. You then have a matter of a few minutes before irreversible death sets in. The effect of severing both Carotid Arteries would be the same, but resuscitation would be immpossible.

I might point out that simultaneously severing both carotids without cutting the trachea would be pretty unlikely anyway

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
No, I'm fairly sure that loss of conciousness is as close to instantaneous as you could imagine. As I've said before, I've had enough experience in hospitals to know what happens to a person when forward circulation ceases. If you're in a CCU unit tended a patient and the rhythm on the monitor changes to ventricular fibrillation or asystole they don't have time to talk about it - they go down immediately without a word.

I'm thinking that a patient in a CCU, who's already in a bad way, is different from a healthy person suffering sudden knife trauma. But I don't have experience either way.

I might point out that simultaneously severing both carotids without cutting the trachea would be pretty unlikely anyway

*looks at anatomy image* I guess I was thinking of the external carotids, just below the ears, as opposed to the common carotids. But it's possible that you might not get both carotids, right? Maybe just one and the trachea, depending on your angle of attack.

[Dr Strangelove]

Think O.J. Simpson's ex. I man with a strong arm can slice clean through the soft tissues of the neck from one side to the other if he has a good knife and the right angle of attack.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

To cause death, yes, but not quickly enough to prevent a potential alarm from going out, for which cutting the neck including windpipe would be better. Of course, in a movie it's more dramatic to have someone go up and take out a sentry with a knife. IRL if possible you'd want to do it at range with a suppressed weapon.

How can the alarm go out?, the body shuts down extremly quickly, from the outer limbs first, making noise from victims thrashing about very short in duration and feeble by normal standards, secondly no vocal alarm is possible.

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Ah, so pulling back the head to expose the throat is another cinematic technique..

Yes, dramatic effect and all that, much like HWood use of thumbs up for life, down for death in the Roman arena, the primary texts tell us its a thumb signal but dont tell us which meant life and which ment death,Hwood make a choice and thats how 99% of people think of it.

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
On a side note, "killology" sounds stupid as a word.

More than say reflexology?. Langauge is a wonderfull thing, we all say the same word, but dont always mean the same thing by its use.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


I might point out that simultaneously severing both carotids without cutting the trachea would be pretty unlikely anyway

Would the pushing forward or pulling back of the head change the relative posistion of them?, does a forward push place all three in a closer proximity?.

Just intrested, as i dont actually know if that is the case, but suspect it might.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Think O.J. Simpson's ex. I man with a strong arm can slice clean through the soft tissues of the neck from one side to the other if he has a good knife and the right angle of attack.

Are you suggesting her killer must have been a person who was unusually strong such as a professional sportsman.

were there any suspects.

[SpencerH]

Firing any smg from the shoulder will be more accurate than firing from the hip. OTOH, firing from the hip will be quicker than raising the weapon to the shoulder then firing. In close quarters combat such as house clearing (for example) quicker may be more effective.

Although I've never trained it extensively myself (I have BTW participated in succesful 'snatch patrols' (i.e. capturing a live target for intelligence purposes), I doubt the effectiveness of pushing the head forward for sentry takeout with a knife.

1) Pulling the head back using the chin while covering the mouth and pulling the target close allows control of the target as well as muffling any outcry. Just how would one control a target while pushing their head forward and down? I think it's much more likely that their whole body would move forward if you try to push the head forward.

2) Even if you could effectively push the head forward and down, I think their would be a substantial chance that the knife stroke will be blocked by the jaw bones. After all, dropping the chin is a standard defense against a throat attack.

3) Unless you're using a butter knife as a weapon, the windpipe and tendons are not strong enough to impede a knife stroke.

I've owned one of these for nearly 30 years (the older model with no serrations i.e. not pretending to be a hunting knife). I can assure you it will not be stopped by the windpipe.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yeah, if you were going to push the victim's head forward you'd have to position the knife in front of the neck before pushing, or the knife would be deflected by the chin. It seems to me that would needlessly slow down the operation by imposing an additional step -> (1) position knife in fornt of throat, (2) grab head and push forward, (3) pull knife back and across the throat. vs. (1) grab head and place knife in front of throat, (2) pull knife back and across throat.

[Sikander]

Some people shoot well naturally from the hip. My uncle (the former marine sniper) could hit a quarter sized target from the hip with a .30 carbine after he returned from the Pacific. My grandmother shot a gun very few times in her life, but nonetheless she was able to shoot a walnut out of the tree on consecutive hip shots (to my great amazement).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sikander
Some people shoot well naturally from the hip. My uncle (the former marine sniper) could hit a quarter sized target from the hip with a .30 carbine after he returned from the Pacific. My grandmother shot a gun very few times in her life, but nonetheless she was able to shoot a walnut out of the tree on consecutive hip shots (to my great amazement).

No doubt about it some people can do it. Were they "country folk" i.e. was hunting a regular food source for them?

I wouldnt say I'm up to shooting walnuts from the hip but I was always a much better shot (relatively) when I didnt have to look through iron sights. We used to practice "quick kill" with a 7.62 rifle which was essentially pointing at the target with your forefinger running down the front stock and firing without using the sights or shouldering the rifle. I was always amazed at how accurate it was at close range especially since I was a terrible shot with a rifle at anything over 100m unless it had a scope of some type.

[Frozzy]

Firing any smg from the shoulder will be more accurate than firing from the hip. OTOH, firing from the hip will be quicker than raising the weapon to the shoulder then firing. In close quarters combat such as house clearing (for example) quicker may be more effective.

Of course. As long as you're looking down the sight or close enough to it, anything you look at you put metal on.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by SpencerH


No doubt about it some people can do it. Were they "country folk" i.e. was hunting a regular food source for them?

I wouldnt say I'm up to shooting walnuts from the hip but I was always a much better shot (relatively) when I didnt have to look through iron sights. We used to practice "quick kill" with a 7.62 rifle which was essentially pointing at the target with your forefinger running down the front stock and firing without using the sights or shouldering the rifle. I was always amazed at how accurate it was at close range especially since I was a terrible shot with a rifle at anything over 100m unless it had a scope of some type.

Yes they were rural. My uncle hunted game throughout the depression with a single shot .22. When I was in basic training we were shooting at the pop up target range and the 25 meter target was malfunctioning / not scoring hits. I complained to the nearest drill sergeant and he had the temerity to suggest that we were simply not hitting the 25 meter target. I picked up my M-16 in one hand and fired it quickly like a pistol three times, once into the target to the left, once into our malfunctioning target and once into the target to the right. As expected the targets to the left and right fell immediately while there was no reaction from our target. That really pissed him off, but we were allowed to re-shoot from another position.

I grew up on open sights and struggled a little with the M-16's peep sight. What I really hated about it was that it blocked out the area around the target, which complicates attempts to lead the target on longer shots. Of course that didn't come up in the training we had, but I imagine that it could easily do so in combat. I still prefer open sights. Scopes are marvelous for long shots but suffer even more from difficulties in orientation in a quickly changing environment. Peep sights seem like the worst of both worlds. I'd rather have a low magnification scope (like the 1.5X scope on the Aug).