How to Fight Write

A third degree Black Belt and an Eagle Scout share their tips to help authors create realistic fight scenes and characters.

[howtofightwrite]

Hope you're doing ok. <3

Been better.

My health's been improving. I've come a long way from late 2024, where I was barely able to get out of bed. My gastroenterologist has the most peculiar sense of humor. When I was in the hospital, my kidneys might have been damaged. A few months after that, it was, my kidneys were on the verge of shutting down, when I was in the hospital. Then, I was almost dead when he saw me in the hospital. Though, I can agree to the last part.

One thing that's slowed me down a bit was tuberculosis treatment. It was probably a false positive due to suffering from an autoimmune condition that was actively trying to kill me. But, because I was medicating with immunosuppressants, we needed to treat it as if it was real. Rifampin is not a fun drug. Made worse because I was accidentally getting over the safe dosage.

I also spent most of a year on corticosteroids. I had never appreciated just how much steroids mess with the body, even at therapeutic dosages. It did help get my UC under control, but coming off of it (even with stepping down) was surprisingly unpleasant.

The other major life change is that we've moved. The upside is, I'm no longer spending four hours a day behind the wheel. The car will last longer, and we won't be hit as hard by the spiking fuel costs. Michi's still got a long commute every day, so I'm not sure how much time that's going to free up.

I'm not sure when regular posting will resume. I don't want to make promises on that if I'm not able to keep them.

I know it's been a rough couple years for everyone. I hope you're all holding together out there. Expect us when you see us, and stay safe.

-Starke

[howtofightwrite]

Is there any basis in reality for the "terrorist for hire" trope you see so often in fiction? Every real life terrorist I've heard of has been ideological - even if they are just in it for the lulz, they still express that by joining a particular group and sticking with it, not offering their services to anyone who'll pay. Has the trope ever had any realism to it, or is it just a plot device so the writers don't have to worry about thinking up a motive or offending anyone?

The realism in the trope is that it's backwards. Terrorists don't generally hire themselves out as mercenaries. I can't say that it's never happened, but, ultimately, it's often more about providing “acceptable targets” that the heroes can obliterate.

Modern culture has a stigma against mercenaries and against terrorists, so stacking both together is a somewhat heavy handed way of excusing whatever violence comes their way.

Now, on the edge of this, there are examples of for-profit terrorism. The that always comes to mind for me are the PLO airline hijackings in the 1970s, though that's hardly the only example. Terrorism is an expensive career choice, and so these groups need to find ways to finance themselves. Historically, these groups would solicit funds (mostly) like any other NGO, meaning donations, and in some cases state-sponsorship.

Since the end of the Cold War, there's been a shift with terror groups engaging in full on organized crime like activities. (Trafficking, drug smuggling, cybercrime, etc.) Historically organized crime and terrorists didn't mix. The reasoning was fairly simple: Terrorists would bring far more scrutiny from law enforcement, so organized crime had an incentive to avoid interacting with those groups.

Now, things are a bit more complicated on that subject. Part of this is that there are a lot of modern criminal enterprises (think the modern drug cartels) that operate using methods that are more akin to terror networks. And, as mentioned above, there are a lot of terror networks that operate using criminal enterprises.

This does result in some situations that are similar to what you're asking about, where terror networks provide security for criminal enterprises (granted, the most recent example I can find is FARC in the 1990s.) This isn't about the terrorists operating as mercenaries, but rather situations where the terrorists and the drug cartels have mutual interest in the same operation, and are working together.

The inverse absolutely happens, with modern terrorists hiring PMCs as specialists for attacks, or in situations where they need a standing military force (most terror networks do not have the bodies to involve themselves in open warfare.) Probably the most famous PMC involved in this kind of activity is the now dissolved Wagner group, which was hired to support terror attacks in the Middle East. (Also, I think in Africa, but I'm less certain of that off hand.) Of course, involvement of the Wagner group, with its former connections to the Russian Federation, does raise the specter of state-sponsored terror groups of the 60s and 70s.

It's also worth noting, there are terror groups that have started down the for-profit route, and abandoned ideology in pursuit of money. One example that comes to mind is Abu Sayyaf, once a Filipino Islamic terror group, the modern incarnation has nothing to do with ideology, and is strictly a criminal enterprise, interested in earning money.

Now, could a, “debased,” group of terrorists start working as mercenaries? Possibly, but not likely. First, that's chump change in comparison to what they could be earning if they took their network and started committing their own crimes, and they're not likely to have the numbers, or background, to make highly desirable mercenaries.

So, no, this trope is more of a convention about creating disposable “bad guys.” There are intersections, but it tends to work out in different ways. You can't just call up “Terrorists,” and hire a random assortment of racially insensitive stereotypes to use as disposable shock troops. That's the service actual PMCs offer.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

How does the chain of command work in the military, in terms of your rank versus your assignment? Like if the captain commanding Alpha Company runs into a lieutenant from Bravo Company, can he just order him "never mind your old mission, you're going to be part of our mission now?" Is it only if they're in the same branch of the service? And how do the armies' nationalities affect things, given how many wars are fought by coalitions?

With the caveat that I've never been in the military, yes, but also no.

The simplest description of the chain of command is that you take orders from those above you in the chain and issue them to those below you. While rank can allow you to issue orders to someone outside your command, it's a bit restricted, with the major caveat being that you cannot countermand that soldier's existing orders, even if they came from someone of lower rank than yourself.

So, “never mind your old mission,” is something that you specifically cannot do. You'd need to go through their superiors and get their existing orders rescinded. And probably also get them to transferred to your command if you needed them. And, keep in mind, even if the officer (or NCO) issuing orders is your junior, they're probably following orders from someone above them.

The end result is, you really can't do that, at least not without getting permission from their superiors. Depending on circumstances, getting that permission might be doable. But, unless it's someone under your command, you can't really order them around.

In the case of multinational coalitions, the chain of command can be whatever it's been set up to be. If a member of another nation's armed services is inserted into the chain of command, that's where they are. They'll issue orders to those below them, and take orders from those above them.

Orders can be issued across different branches. The most common example of this is Navy and Marines. Though Army and Air Force get tangled up, and of course any mix is possible given the right circumstances.

Also, chains of command, especially in joint operations, can hop across branches without issue. You can absolutely have Navy officers issuing orders to Marine officers or vice versa.

You also can't really hijack someone from their command the way you're describing. That's going to go back to them still having standing orders from their superiors that they have to follow.

It's worth knowing that chain of command tends to be a bit more important than rank. Usually this pops up when you'll see an officer commanding another of the same rank. For example, a ship's captain, and several department heads may all be O6s. (Meaning, captains.) The ship's captain will be the commanding officer, and the others will report to them, even if they're the same rank. (It's worth knowing that a ship's captain can hold a rank below captain. For example, a Lieutenant Commander might be the captain of a corvette. Though, they would be addressed as “Captain,” as their title takes priority over their rank. What happens if an O5 or O6 comes aboard? I'm not 100% sure, but if they're not part of the Captain's chain of command, and there's no orders regarding them, they're effectively a guest.)

Now, for quick disposable orders, that won't meaningfully disrupt someone's duties, yes, those orders can be issued outside of your chain of command. You can't co-opt someone on the spot for your own operations, but you can grab someone nearby and ask them to fetch someone elsewhere on the base, or tell them to clean something up. So, “find the Col,” or, “get this trash out of here,” is fine, “you're with me,” can start to run a little close to the line.

Also, if you're not countermanding a soldier's order, your orders can carry full force. For example, if a senior officer catches a junior out of uniform, (or, just not up to uniform code for whatever reason), if they order them to correct that and the junior doesn't, that's insubordination. In the example above about trash, if the junior is responsible for that trash's existence in the first place, an order to clean it up is likely to have full force.

So, for your example, no, but there are certainly cases where someone can issue an order outside their chain of command, or even outside their branch of service. What they can't do is countermand existing legal orders.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

What kind of weapons or situations are less interchangable when you use a different weapon than you're used to? I never knew that bit about snipers and was wondering if there would ever be a similar kind of issue with other weapons. Is long-range archery the same thing? Or is that only because of the extreme range? I mean like if a sniper is only shooting 50m is the gun interchangeable?

When you're thinking about what your character can, and can't do, you're engaging in a lot of abstraction. I probably shouldn't phrase that in second person, because I do it too. Even if you're not sitting down and plotting out a character sheet, simply condensing a person down to a few paragraphs is going to require a bit of abstraction.

Character sheets have the nice quality of distilling fairly unwieldy into very digestible chunks. Personally, I can find them pretty useful in a lot of situations. They are an abstraction, but they can help you operationalize your characters.

Really, if you get into RPGs, the entire concept of rolling dice on a skill check, a lot of the time what you're doing is unpacking that abstraction. Your character has some average level in local history, but you're rolling the dice to see if they know and remember that specific fact. The idea of simply, “knowing history,” is an abstraction, because really you know facts, sequences of events, individuals and similar details. But writing all of that down would be an unwieldy essay in its own right, and might not include information that your character should know, simply because you didn't know that when you wrote the sheet, so instead you simply mark down History, with a relevant dice modifier, and move on with your character.

Weapons are a lot like that. You're condensing a lot of distinct skills and pieces of information down into one or two stat lines. (Or, in the case of a sheet for your writing, it might simply say “good with a rifle,” or even just, “a sniper.”)

Having said all of that, I'm honestly okay with it. It is a great way to abstract a lot of individual details down into something you can use, at a glance, to assess your character. It can quickly tell you if your character knows how to use a gun or not. That accessibility is extremely valuable in the moment.

As for long range accuracy being distinct from short range accuracy, I'm actually inclined to say no, or at least very rarely. The difficult parts with long range accuracy are adjusting for range and wind. Neither of those are issues at shorter ranges, so short range accuracy tends to be a lot easier overall. The trade-off is that hitting a moving target is generally harder than a stationary one, and at shorter ranges, someone's less likely to stand there and let you draw a bead on them. I could see someone arguing that hitting a moving target is its own skill. Similarly, I could see combat shooting as its own skill, because returning fire is very different from being able to carefully take aim.

A little bit of a different thread, but on weapons not being interchangeable, there's a huge difference between being able to hit someone with a rifle at 50m, and a handgun. Remember, the original question stipulated that the user was firing at someone roughly 20m away with a handgun. That's a very doable shot, if you're familiar with using pistols. Hitting someone with 50m with a pistol isn't impossible, but that's the outer edge of where you'd be able to effectively use one. At the same time, hitting someone at 50m with a rifle should be no problem.

Now, can a gun trip you up, even if you know other guns? Yeah. It happened to me the first time I handled a reproduction Colt Single-Action Army. It doesn't feel good, and it's not especially easy to use with a modern stance. However, I'd run across a description of a 19th century pistol stance (I think in a western film, of all things), and when I adjusted to the stance that the gun was probably designed for, I found it a much better experience. The SAA remains one of my favorite recreational firearms to this day, but not if you're trying to hold it in a Weaver stance.

Now, “is it interchangeable?” I'm not 100% sure, but 50m isn't bad if you're working with a rifle you're not incredibly familiar with, so long as you know the basics, it's in good condition, and the sights aren't botched.

Now, as to the question about long-range archery, I never got that far with a bow, but my perception is yes, and no. Yes, in the sense that you're dealing with factors like drop and wind. No, in the sense that, long-range archery is much shorter range than firearms. (Take this with a grain of salt, but you're not likely to see an archer hitting targets at more than a couple hundred meters.) As a related factor, the arrow has a lot more surface area, so wind is a bigger factor, than for a bullet.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

I know that shooting while moving is not great... I have a character being chased by another and shooting at each other so they're both running. The chased character uses a handgun and misses wildly from less than 60 feet away. That sounds normal enough, but I'm wondering if it would be weird if the character is a sniper that hits targets 1.5 miles away with rifles? Maybe I should give them other handicaps too - i.e. drunk, no glasses, shooting offhand??

So, a couple things here. So I'll just separate them out.

You probably get this first part, but I'll spell it out, just in case it's someones' first time. The basic idea of aiming a firearm is that you're working with a very small object (the bullet), and you want it on a very specific trajectory. While the specific physics are different, you can experience this (without a weapon) by playing with a flashlight. As you move around, the light's going to bounce around a bit. You can specifically slow your movements so that you're keeping the light trained on a specific point while moving, but you sacrifice speed to do that. The same thing works for firearms. You can keep a stable aim while moving, but, you're sacrificing mobility for it.

The weird part about the sniper is the 1.5 miles detail. To be clear, the list of Snipers with confirmed kills at that range (or higher) is about six people. (There's about four more who are slightly under 1.5 miles, in the 2-2.4km range.) So, that's absolutely something that can be done, but you would be talking about someone who is, literally, one of the best snipers in the world, taking the best shot in their life.

There's nothing wrong with saying you have a character who is that good. But it is the kind of thing you should probably be aware of when you're writing a character if they're among the best in the world.

One famous example of a fumble on this subject would be the original James Bond novels. Flemming somewhat overcompensated, and as a result Bond's described physical regimen becomes borderline parody when you remember that the character is also a high-functioning alcoholic and chainsmoker.

It's also worth remembering, when you are talking about sniping, that the limitations of the weapons are pretty important. One of the snipers mentioned above used a .338, the rest were all using anti-material rifles. (Mostly .50s, but there was also a 14.5mm rifle used in Ukraine, at 2.7km.) So, to hit someone at that range, you're probably using a very heavy gun, designed to take out vehicles.

So, if your setup is someone sniping with a Mk14, or a SCAR, they're probably only good out to about 500m. (A little over a quarter mile.) They might get lucky some day. The world record for a kill with a Remington 700 (technically, an M24) was at 1,250m. So, less than a mile.

Is it weird that someone could be a world class sniper, and still miss a snapshot at close range? Not especially.

Let me define the term snapshot, it's not that complicated, but, it's not really the general term. Snapshooting is the practice of being able fire semi-accurately without aiming. It is a specific skill with firearms. You can think of it as being related to quickdrawing, and while there is overlap between the two, it's not quite the same skill.

Sniping is about taking the time, and accounting for how the bullet will behave as a physical object at extreme ranges. It requires familiarity with your weapon. Not, just the make and model, but the behavior of your specific gun.

There is some basic proficiencies with firearms that are easy to pick up, so it would be somewhat peculiar if you had someone who had extensive experience and training with a rifle, but no comprehension of how to operate a pistol. (You could certainly work out specific counterexamples, but as a general rule you're unlikely to see that.)

It's likely your sniper would be reasonably competent with a handgun. Though there's no reason to assume that you're looking at someone who could hollow dimes at 150m with one.

This leads to a different thought, and it's probably something you want to consider for yourself. Why fire at the pursuers?

The answer you had before might have been as simple as, “well, they're shooting at my character, so of course they'll return fire.”

If you're being pursued, you'll loose speed and time to return fire, even if you're not careful with your shots. Even if you're blindly firing over your shoulder. On it's own, you'd be better off keeping your gun in it's holster, and focusing on getting distance, and finding an escape.

However, suppressing fire can force your pursuers to slow down.

The point of suppressing fire is not to kill your foe. It's a nice perk if it happens, but what you're actually doing is denying spaces they want to move through. Returning fire like this isn't about actually hitting the pursuers, it's about forcing them to slow down and be more careful, while your characters gain distance.

So, does it make sense that a world class sniper would fire blindly over their shoulder at pursuers in order to slow them down, without any real concern over getting precise shots? Yeah. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

If the point was to kill them, your sniper would want to find someplace with actual cover, preferably on a blind corner, get out of sight, and gun them down when they came around that corner. Like your sniper was a moment ago, they're going to be at a full run. (And, depending on the exact environment, your sniper might be able to hit them from behind, as they run past the hiding spot, or something similar. There are options on how this would work out.) This kind of an ambush is quite doable.

It's always worth remembering, your character's goal in a fight might not be to kill their opponent, and while it might seem irresponsible to use bullets as a general deterrent, that is one of the primary uses of firearms in warfare. Granted, it's not the primary way snipers interact with their weapons, but the fundamentals are still there.

Now, is it possible that a sniper wouldn't even consider using their handgun for suppressing fire? I could believe that. Not because they don't know how, or don't understand the concept, but rather, simply because it's not how they think about using their weapons. Though, again, a character like that is more likely to take the ambush route detailed above.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

Medical Update

So, this is a little behind the curve here. Michi had emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder on the 5th. She's recovering pretty well, and was back at work this week, though she may have overdone it a bit yesterday, so she's still on light duty.

This has, understandably, screwed up our schedule even further. I do see the asks in the inbox, and I'll try to get back to answering those on a more regular basis.

Apologies for not getting this on the blog sooner, to let you guys know.

-Starke

[howtofightwrite]

My character is an anthro octopus, arms moving independently without needing to split focus, can they wield multiple weapons efficiently? Should there be a soft limit like 4 instead of all 8? Octopi can detach arms which still move for an hour on their own. What do you think of having just an arm in combat by itself? Perhaps there are medical advances for quick regeneration so it'll fully regrow in a week or so. Also, what do you think of holding weapons by sucker instead of gripping?

So, one random piece of trivia worth knowing, but the plural is “octopuses.” The word originates from Greek, not Latin, so it's pluralized by adding, “-es.”

Now, the hard part about this question is, we don't really know how well cephalopods can split their attention. They have phenomenal control over their limbs, and in the octopuses, have very advanced nervous systems that can control their tentacles (and suction cups) with a lot of finesse. But, that wouldn't necessarily mean that everything's operating independently. So, an anthropomorphic octopus might still be limited to using one weapon at a time at maximum efficiency. Though, there's a legitimate question of, “where's the fun in that?”

Fictional characters don't dual wield because it's effective, they do it because it looks cool. It feeds into an aesthetic. If you want your octopus to swing weapons with each of their tentacles, it doesn't really matter how scientifically feasible that is.

As for a severed limb? It's going to be like any other severed limb. It might keep twitching and spasming, as the nerves continue to fire, but it's not going to be particularly effective. Octopuses do most of their hunting by touch, so, the loss of vision, hearing, and other senses isn't immediately a problem, but it would still critically impair it's ability to fight. (And, that's assuming that your octopus has significant neural tissue in its tentacles, which could have some pretty unfortunate effects for the character if they lost a tentacle in combat.)

Holding by sucker seems extremely plausible to me. That's how octopuses (and some squid) already manipulate objects. It's also where their senses are the most refined. So, that makes complete sense.

It's probably worth noting that the suckers pick up the taste and scent of an object they encounter, as well as the texture. It's a peculiar detail, but would mean that your character would literally taste their weapons every time they picked them up. They'd also taste any door they opened. And that light switch.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

So this is a touch odd but a person I talked to who was into saber fencing talked about how you shouldn't aim for "fast" movements as that only leads to sloppy and hasty actions, aiming for "fluid" movement using the momentum leading to more precise and ultimately faster actions, I thought it'd be interesting to expand this thought into a more fantastical "mystical" fighting style where a protagonist is able to use these movements and the state of mind to accomplish superhuman feats of swordplay and general movement, I was wondering if this idea sounded any good and if so what resources I should check out about fencing, movement or martial arts media I should look into to improve it

This is pretty common. If you push yourself to go as fast as you can, you're far more prone to making errors. However, if you practice doing something (or, really, anything) you'll get faster at that task or action. You'll see the biggest jump from the first few times, once you've gotten the process down, but this can apply to pretty much anything in life.

To be clear, this isn't something exclusive to martial arts or combat, it applies to most, untimed, mundane activities as well. So suggesting it applies to mystical actions isn't really much of a stretch.

In fencing, the push for fluidity of movement is doing it correctly, and flowing from one technique into the next properly. Over time, practicing that will result in greater speed than someone who's simply trying to push themselves to go as fast as possible.

As for a specific citation? I'm not 100% sure. Basically any credible reference should put a priority on learning to perform techniques properly, and allowing you to build up speed over time as a result. This may seem like a bit of a tangent, but when you're looking at sources for “off-topic” inspiration, it's not really about the quality of the material itself, but rather the quality of the ideas you extract from it. If you are looking at a fencing manual that is (somehow) fundamentally wrong, but you're looking for ideas to use in your mystical martial art, those mistakes, or even misunderstandings of your own, can still be useful in fueling the creation of your own works. So long as you're not trying to take those perceptions into a real fight, or getting into arguments with people about, “no, this is what they really mean,” those kinds of “transcription errors” can be quite valuable for creating something new.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

How much would a broken rib debilitate an inexperienced person in a life or death fight?

I’m trying to write my character’s (a 15-year-old, untrained librarian) first experience with serious violence (not his first time getting hit ever though, his travelling companion plays rough with him but obviously not with the intention to seriously hurt him) and being on the receiving end of a bandit attack. He gets grabbed by his hair and after he stomps on and breaking a couple of the bandit’s toes, the bandit gets angry and knees him in the stomach, breaking his rib and knocking the wind out of him while keeping his grip on his hair so he can’t double over properly.

Afterwards he’s slammed onto his back a couple times, which I imagine would send him into further pain as it jostles his injured rib. My question is, especially considering he’s completely untrained and this is his first experience with a broken bone and being attacked by someone with the intention to injure him, would the pain be great enough that he shouldn’t be able to fight back at all, or would the adrenaline of the life or death situation be enough that he could at least put up a struggle? I’ve personally only sprained my ankle, so I don’t know how incapacitating a broken bone would be, and with how vulnerable I want my character to come across, I really wanna make sure I get it right.

So, not speaking from personal experience, but no matter how much training you have, you can't “power through” a broken bone.

In the case of your ribs, don't worry, it will only cause debilitating problems if you want to do unimportant things, like breathing, or getting hit anywhere in the torso, or moving parts of your body that are connected to your torso. Again, you really can't power through that. In a situation like the one described, it's not a guaranteed death sentence, but, it's close enough.

I should probably add, this isn't because, of the broken rib per se, but, that rib is not doing them any favors. What it will ensure is that your character cannot defend themselves against their attackers. Given the attackers want to cause harm, they're going to be able to do that pretty effectively.

And it gets worse. Normally your ribs protect your internal organs from being damaged. When one of those ribs is broken, it becomes a bone shard perfectly positioned for puncturing internal organs. So taking blows to a broken rib can easily result in serious internal bleeding, and death.

To paraphrase an old joke, broken ribs are nature's way of telling you to slow down. They're not going to be able to fight back (or, really, engage in many physically intensive activities.) If someone wants to make them hurt, the hard part is living through the attack at all.

If you want a superficial break that you can (sort of) power through, a broken nose is one of the best options. It will bleed like crazy, but outside of a freak accident, it's very survivable, and looks a lot worse than it actually is. Broken fingers are another legitimate option, and there's a lot of ways that can happen. It will make it harder for them to handle a book afterwards, meaning it's the kind of damage that will stick with them throughout the rest of the story (and their lives, if they're not properly set.) Breaking a rib? That's going to need medical attention, and they're not doing anything meaningful while it heals. It can work if someone else pulls their attacker off of them, but they're not digging themselves out of this one on their own.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

If someone is training to hunt monsters in a modern day setting (like an urban fantasy story), what might be a good starting point for learning how to use weapons? If they don't specialize in a specific type of entity, and it's one that can be brought down physically, what other things do you think it might be good for someone to be taught?

So, I've said this before as a bit, but monster hunting wouldn't really be about combat most of the time. There's probably some edge cases, like vampires, where you're fundamentally looking at a human with superpowers, but against the vast majority of critters, monster hunting would be more like, well, hunting, or pest control.

If the monster is exceedingly lethal, you don't want to be getting into fights with it. That means taking a more methodical approach to identify and exploit weaknesses, and then eliminating it like any other pest.

Ironically, while the book is a bit crude at times, one of the first examples that comes to mind is Vampire$ by John Steakley, (and the film adaptation by John Carpenter.) The priority there is to identify vampire nests during the day, then use specialized stake guns attached to winches to drag the vampires out into the sun, before collapsing the building entirely.

This means, you're probably better off looking at people with backgrounds in animal control, exterminators, park rangers, game wardens, and similar backgrounds, rather than military or law enforcement backgrounds. (Though, technically, rangers may fall under the header of LEOs.)

Effectively dealing with any animal (and most cryptids tend to fall into this category) involves learning about its behavior. Now, obviously, if you're dealing with some incredibly reclusive creature that's evaded detection by the modern world, it does strain credibility a bit when someone wanders in with a complete understanding of their behavior. (See: Every bigfoot expert ever.) But, the basic premise is foundational if your characters are going to go out hunting those creatures.

When you're dealing with more overtly supernatural foes, then the focus on information they'd need would change somewhat. But, in a lot of ways, the same template holds. It's critical for your hunters to understand the limits and favored behaviors of those creatures.

Now, obviously, you can have very different approaches. I was recently reminded of the old World of Darkness Demon Hunter X splat, where one of the groups detailed (in a modern urban fantasy setting) were using extensive cybernetic augmentations to directly fight monsters (with a very anime inspired aesthetic.) If you have the setup for it, you can go in really wild directions with your urban fantasy monster hunters, and the advice of a relatively low-power group that treat cryptids the same way you'd treat a rat infestation might not be applicable. Similarly, hunting vampires and werewolves may involved more conventional, military tactics, if that's what you're looking for.

It does depend on what your story calls for, and I'll readily admit, my main observation here has more to do with how modern horror writing tends to present these creatures, and then looking for a practical solution to the problem they pose. (Also the juxtaposition is funny. You start out expecting Blade, and instead get some random guys in jumpsuits with animal control poles, who are going to grab the horrific deathbeasts, stick them in crates, and ship them off to a preserve in Montana.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

Can you explain more about what CAR and CQC are? I'm assuming they're types of fighting styles, but what exactly makes them different, and why would one be used over the other?

CQC and CQB are blanket terms. These are abbreviations for Close Quarters Combat, and Close Quarters Battle. Describing either as a combat style is an awkward application of the term. You'll sometimes see either term used to categorize the intended use case for a weapon. Especially more compact weapons.

For example: Clearing a house, or dealing with tight alleyways, are likely to result in CQC if combat does occur.

Also, the terms evaluate the distance between enemy combatants, so technically CQC can occur in open spaces, it's just more unlikely.

You might encounter someone using CQC as a shorthand for any melee combat. That's technically not quite right, but it's not wrong.

CAR is a handgun stance. Short for Center-Axis Relock, CAR was developed by the late Paul Castle. It is designed for using handguns in CQC. The stance is built around keeping the handgun very close to the body. This has two direct features. First, it's very hard to disarm someone using CAR in hand-to-hand. Simply put, there's not a lot of good access to the pistol. Second, and a related feature, you can use the handgun in far tighter spaces than you could in a more conventional stance like Weaver. Again, this is because the pistol is close to the body. The trade-off is that it's less stable and accurate than Weaver. Ideally, you don't need to worry about those, because of the ranges you should be using CAR at, but, you may find people who try to use CAR longer distances.

John Wick is probably where CAR got the most attention, though it's not the originator of the stance, and the films include a lot of material that's completely unrelated to CAR. Even in the film, Keanu regularly switches between CAR and Weaver stances (though, he's not always switching to Weaver when it would make sense to do so.)

I think it would be fairly obvious, but in case it's not, if you don't have a handgun, there's no way to practice CAR. It's not some martial art where you can use a handgun, it's literally just, “here are a few ways to hold a gun so you can use it effectively in tight spaces.”

CQC is just, “a fight is happening and everyone's really packed in there.” It could be guns, could be knives, could be fists, could be tire irons, but there's not a lot of room between the fighters.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

Saw a photo police riding Water Buffalo in Brazil and it ignited something in me.

How would a force of mounted rhino riders be best used, militarily? Call it 16th-17th century black powder mixed with peasant infantry still armed and armored for melee.

I was thinking short-lived, heavily-armored shock cavalry, but I'm not overly familiar with the stamina of your average (we'll say White) Rhino.

So, there's two approaches to this. Like you, I'm not coming into this with a lot of prior knowledge, so this is from some very cursory research.

The first one is, simply put, they're not suitable. Rhinos tend to be a bit too aggressive to take a rider. This isn't 100% true, and there are rare examples of rhinos that were willing to take riders (though the only examples I've found have been singular parings of a rider and animal, not rhinos that would take whomever.) The aggression might sound like a good feature, until you realize the animal will also be aggressive towards its potential rider.

Also, interestingly, rhinos appear to have limited eyesight. The estimates I'm seeing suggest it drops off sharply at ~25ft. That would make them less than ideal for use as shock cavalry. They'd be fine once they were in contact, but getting them out and maneuvering them around would be a pain. (I'm going to point out, this “fact” isn't particularly well studied. So, it might be somewhat incorrect, but reportedly does appear to reflect how the animals react towards humans approaching them.)

Put those together, and you've got a recipe for an animal that will identify its rider as the problem, and then go after them, without any awareness of the enemy army.

The other option is to simply go for it. It's not something you could do in the real world, but if you're accepting that as break from reality, you could simply roll with rhino cavalry as part of your world. Granted, this works better if you have an overtly fantasy setting, rather than one trying to maintain a veneer of realism.

If you're wanting to go this route, then you've already answered your question. Using the rhino riders as heavy shock cav, and probably relying (at least partially) on the rhinos themselves to participate in the carnage. At that point, the real world considerations of the animal don't really apply, because your rhino riders are riding something other than the real world animal.

So, you've got options.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

Is it stupid for someone to keep throwing knives backwards? How much training is needed to stop that? I've been reading a fic where this a running gag with a character who doesn't progress much even after a year. One such gag she throws at an enemy in front but accidentally kills the one sneaking up behind them. She's not a fighter, but the group has enemies so the main fighters equip and train her so she isn't totally defenceless.

So, I'm probably missing something here, but “keeping” the knives backwards?

There are a couple ways to read that which make perfect sense. One is the reverse grip. There are reasons to carry a knife in a reverse grip (meaning, the blade protrudes past the pinky finger, rather than the ring finger.) The first thing that comes to mind is the karambit. This a curved knife which is intended to be used from a reverse grip (though, it can be used in a forward grip as well.)

Another thought is that in a reverse grip you can conceal the blade along your forearm before striking. Because the blade doesn't (noticeably alter) the wielder's silhouette it has a significant impact on limiting their victim's ability to see the blade. An experienced knife wielder can quickly and easily switch their grip, so they're not limited to reverse grip strikes from this starting position.

From a throwing perspective, an experienced knife user (with a lot of guts) can simply drop their knife and catch the blade before throwing. There are multiple ways to throw, and the one I'm most familiar with is a spinning throw while holding the blade. Actually doing that is not a great idea; it's unnecessarily risky, but it is the kind of thing you'll see in fiction from time to time. (It's probably easier to simply to reverse it into a forward grip and launch the knife into a flat throw. But, that's the one I'm less familiar with.)

If the intent was that the character was wearing their knives with reverse sheathes (meaning the knife is carried blade up on the body), that's a personal preference, and has more to do with how they reach for their weapon. For example, a vertical sheathe on the chest (whether blade is up or down) can be very easy for a practiced fighter to reach and draw. (If the blade is up, it will easily draw into a forward grip; if the blade is down, it will draw into a reverse grip.)

Incidentally, if you're wondering how you keep a sheathed knife in a blade up position, you've got options. There are pressure sheathes which will hold the knife in position until pulled. There are strap options that are a bit more secure. It depends, but it can be securely held until needed.

Now, it's just a joke that the character is throwing their knife behind them, when they get ready to launch it, that's not really going to happen. It's the kind of mistake someone might make once or twice when they first pick up a knife, but learning how to hold and throw a blade isn't that difficult, and the motion bringing the knife to ready for a throw isn't (or, shouldn't be) forceful enough to have that result. Your arm is not a catapult or bow, the energy going into readying the knife doesn't need to be equivalent to the force of release. You've got the electrically excited meat to generate that force, and you don't need a lot of energy to get that knife moving.

For a character without a lot of combat training, knives are one of the worst weapons you can hand them, and throwing it makes things even worse. This is one of those blindingly obvious statements, but, if you have a knife, and you throw it, you no longer have a knife. You have just surrendered your weapon, and are now unarmed. (Obviously, if your knife was a backup, you might not be unarmed, but you're still giving up a functional weapon, until you can retrieve it.)

Even without considering throwing, knives are exceptionally lethal in the hands of an experienced wielder. An inexperienced fighter armed with a knife, is not going to stand a reasonable chance of surviving contact with the enemy. So, someone equipping an inexperienced fighter with a knife has already made a horrible mistake. It's a deceptively high-skill weapon, being put in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it.

Beyond that, if someone is training for a full year, and not seeing any progress, that's a personal choice. They're either disengaged entirely, or their teachers are completely incompetent (which, might track with the part where they decided to start her off with a knife.)

With most weapons, you should see practical competence within a few weeks of regular training. When you see longer time frames like this, it can either reflect a weapon that is exceptionally difficult to use (such as the urami, I'm not sure how long it takes to train on one of those), that the writer has severely dropped the ball, or that they're letting their biases show.

In this case, it's probably the latter. That's not the kind of mistake someone's going to reasonably make more than once.

So, in answer to your original question: Yeah. It kinda is. It's a little harder to say who that reflects on, but it isn't a reasonable mistake to make.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

How do you think can a character be described as using a golf club as a weapon? Not in the executioner style like in Last of Us 2 or Bioshock, but like, as a stupid weapon art. Like a serious weapon.

Inelegantly and briefly. The golf club isn't particularly well suited for use as a weapon. Most attacks have large, telegraphed swings, that are easy for a trained foe to counter or evade.

Ironically, one of the more “realistic” depictions I've seen was from the film Suicide Kings (1997) where it's used to ambush someone seated at a booth. Because the victim is pinned, his options to defend himself are extremely limited, the attacker can just flail away on him. The attacker also breaks his club during the attack. (And, it wouldn't surprise me if Dennis Leary broke the actual prop shooting the scene.)

Which is a bit of a theme, given the use in Bioshock also results in a destroyed club. Fragility is a problem with a lot of improvised weapons, and the golf club is no exception. Just because it's designed to hit a 1.6oz (46g) ball, that doesn't mean it's well designed to kill another human being. That thin shaft is not meant to sustain combat damage, nor is the head designed to remain attached when you start slamming the club into large sack of watery meat with the distressing habit of leaking and screaming.

So, what you're left with is a disposable, improvised weapon that a character can probably use briefly, but in the process it will be ruined and discarded. That cuts hard against it being used as a serious weapon.

Ironically, the use in Bioshock does nicely illustrate one potential application. Because the club will start to fail quickly, it makes the ensuing murder feel much more brutal, than if Jack used the wrench.

Dogma (1999) is another. In that case, the absurdity of killing a literal demon with a golf club is more used for comedic effect (because it's a ridiculous weapon), with the punchline, “[he's] the kind of asshole who'd bless his own clubs.”

It's also, probably, pretty telling that both of the film examples that come to mind (at least for me) are comedies.

I can't think of anyone trying to do this seriously beyond a couple swings. I can think of a few cases where someone gets their hands on one and uses it in a single scene before discarding it, but in spite of the name, it's really not a weapon, and can't be converted into a weapon the way a baseball bat can.

They do pop up in video games a little more often. Though, those tend to be games that bend a little more towards the absurd (Dead Rising, Fallout: New Vegas, and I'm pretty sure they've showed up as options in the Hitman games and Dead Island.)

Ultimately, the golf club really isn't well suited for life as a serious weapon.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

So, no surprise to anyone who's been following the blog for any period of time, but I've been dealing with some chronic illness for a while. (This is also why last week's post never made it over from Patreon. I barely had the energy to write it on Tuesday, and by Friday, I didn't have the energy to get it queued on Tumblr.)

This finally spilled over into a trip to the ER at 3am on Monday, and since then, I've been in the hospital undergoing treatment for Ulcerative Colitis. It's a particularly unpleasant disorder (you can Google it if you want the grisly details for yourself.)

I don't remember if I've disclosed it on Tumblr before, but I have diabetes. Unfortunately, the treatment for UC involves anabolic steroids to manage swelling, and steroids do not mix with diabetes. Meaning, hospitalization really is necessary (at least for a bit longer.)

This is a long way to say, there probably won't be a regular post this week. Once again, I'm sorry about that.

The good news is that I have been improving, so I'm able to do more than just stagger from the bed to bathroom, and then crawl back into bed for the rest of the day.

I'm not sure when regular posting will resume, but I'm not dead yet.

-Starke

[howtofightwrite]

Hey! I'm writing a series with a character who is a sniper. She is a private hire and ends up meeting someone who works with shorter ranged guns and weapons.

I'm just wondering how they would differ when killing someone and what are the tells of each weapon. I want to make it clear that the weapons are different but I'm not sure what those differences are

So, something that stuck out to me originally, when reading this is, most snipers are going to have a close range PDW. Whether that's just their sidearm or something more substantial, they'd need to be proficient with something in close quarters if it comes to that.

Now, the hard part about answering this question in the abstract is that, almost everything associated with firearms is extremely date sensitive.

For example, if your CQB/CQC character was originally trained sometime in the late 90s to late 2000s (in a Western country), they'd have likely encountered Center Axis Re-lock. Outside of those 20 years, then that style hadn't seen widespread adoption, or had fallen out of favor.

For some specific film examples, Vincent (Tom Cruise) from Collateral (2004) would have been working as an assassin for at least a decade by the time we see him in the film. We can make this assessment based on the way he handles the USP, and then compare to CQC training. His one-handed disarm and execute he uses in the alley puts his training sometime in the 80s to 90s at the earliest, while his lack of CAR in close quarters tells you he didn't have Western military or law enforcement training after the mid-90s.

Another film example that might surprise you is John Wick (Keanu Reeves). In those films he exhibits CQC training that suggests he still in the military less than 15 years before the events of the first film. Except his CAR stances are actually a little sloppy (which is unusual for Reeves), which suggests that Wick may have observed others using the stance, and then improvised a version of it for his own use. Meaning you can't really estimate when his combat training occurred. (This might also might explain why he's a bit sloppy about when he switches between Weaver and CAR.) By the way, it is quite difficult to pick this out. It took a few experts dinging on the first Wick film before I really started picking up on the issues with Reeves' technique. And I haven't seen anyone else draw the conclusion that Wick is probably self-taught in CAR. (This was corrected for the later films, as Reeves did get proper training in CAR in preparation for the second film.)

In particular, this is a singular example, but there are a lot of things someone can do that will inform you about their background and training. This starts with weapon selection. Things like their preferred sidearm and primary can be very insightful. People tend to go in one of two directions with firearms. Either, they're very willing to adapt and experiment, or they'll find something they're comfortable with and hone in with that specific firearm.

For example, is your sniper carrying around a Remington 700, or something like an MSR or AWM? Both are legitimate answers, but they say very different things about how your character approaches their area of expertise. Similarly, are they carrying a 1911 pattern pistol, or something more modern, like an HK USP or FN P45?

If your sniper is carrying around an AMT Hardballer, and your CQC specialist is carrying around a P45t, your CQC specialist has twice the magazine capacity. They can afford to dump rounds into someone until they stop twitching. Where as a Hardballer is “just” an extremely well made 1911. Their kills are going to look different, but it's a function of the weapon they chose.

Without knowing what they're carrying, it's very hard to answer definitively how their kills will look.

If it was me, kitting out for CQC in a situation where I'd need to hide the weapon under a jacket, I'd seriously consider an AAC Honey Badger hidden under a sport coat. (I know, I trash talked the Honey Badger a few years ago, before getting a good look at one and seeing just how tiny they are. Mea Culpa. I should know better than to shit on a gun I'm unfamiliar with by now. That's a toxic element of gun culture I've been trying to get away from. It still clings a bit sometimes.) Similarly, the Mk18 and Colt 733 are also pretty good options. That's a little bit of an M4a1 bias, but it's a decent platform. There are other valid options, those are just the first that come to mind for me.

If your character was kitting for CQC, and wanted Warsaw pact weapons, the Groza is a bit exotic, but that's what it was designed for. The SR-3M Vikhr is an update of the Val, and a pretty legitimate choice. They're both 9x39mm rifles, so long range accuracy isn't happening, but in close quarters they still hit stupidly hard. Granted, any Krinkov would work in that role. (So, mostly AKS-74Us.) (I think there were some 7.62x39mm Krinkovs, but I can't remember the name.)

So, ultimately, identifying the differences between the weapons, starts with knowing what the weapons are. Having a basic idea of how they handle (even if that's not first hand), and then being able to see how they differ from one another. This is made even harder in the sense that modern firearms have become extremely modular. Given the option to fully kit out the same gun for you CQC specialist, it's a pretty good bet you and I would walk away with distinctly different end results. Even if the base model was the same. (For the record, I'm not saying my configuration would be better. I have biases and preferences that aren't necessarily the best option available.)

The best place to start, is looking at the kinds of weapons your character would use. Your sniper's going to want a long range precision rifle and a sidearm. She might also go for a small machine pistol/SMG. Your CQC specialist would probably prioritize an actual primary. That might be an SMG, a carbine, or even a shotgun (because nothing says hello quite like three or four 12 gauge shells pumped out of a fully automatic Saiga. (And before someone corrects me, yes, I know, there are no production full-auto Saigas, however they can be illegally modified for full-auto.)

Once you know how different the weapons are, you can start digging into how the characters themselves approach combat, and how their respective styles differ.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[howtofightwrite]

What kind of wounds would a shotgun give to someone thats not wearing any bullet proof vest but just thick, winter jackets? Like those heavy jackets with fleece on the inside that old guys wear alot. ( I think its called a work jacket?)

I've always thought a shot gun would give some sort of blast damage and make quite a mess, but in The Day of The Jackal ep 6 it didn't seem that bad when he killed that farmer guy in Hungary lol.

So here's a fun thought to play with. A leather jacket is made from treated animal hide. In most cases, they're actually softened a bit to be more comfortable.

Shotguns are frequently used to hunt large game. Large game where their primary form of armor is their skin. Their skin which does almost nothing to stop a shotgun blast.

So, unless it's loaded with something like rocksalt, a leather jacket is not stopping a shotgun.

In answer to your original question, “what kind of wounds?” Catastrophic ones. It would be really messy.

Also, remember shotguns are still usable up to ~100 meters, at which they'll have a roughly 2m spray pattern. Getting hit by a shotgun, even at 50 meters, is going to be really bad. It's a bit like hitting someone simultaneously with a hail of small caliber rounds. Individually one piece of shot isn't likely to be lethal, but get hit with five or six of them, and that's a real problem. It's going to create a bunch of wound channels, and each wound has a chance to hit something vital, or ricochet and try again. And even at best, you're going to be losing blood from each of them simultaneously.

As for actual armor, most Level III or higher armor should stop a shotgun blast. However, shotguns are pretty good at damaging body armor. So someone wearing a ballistic vest who takes a shotgun hit, probably isn't going to be safe from the next pistol round that hits their vest anywhere near where the shot landed.

Similarly, with plate carriers, it should be fine, but there's a real risk that some of the shot chipped the plate. That's not going to cause the next shotgun blast to punch through, but it does mean that carrier now can't be trusted to stop rifle rounds.

Now, none of that are things you usually obsess over. For the most part, ballistic armor is single use anyway. If you're wearing a Kevlar vest and get shot, it's time to replace that vest. So, having your vest soak a shotgun hit isn't some kind of special tactic on your enemy's part, and is really just your vest doing its job.

Against unarmored targets, shotguns can be downright horrific.

So, using a winter parka to stop a shotgun blast is probably the result of someone who heard the, “shotguns are horrible at armor penetration,” line and took it a little bit too seriously.

There are some AP shells out there. Including slugs that market themselves as armor penetrating. I've never looked too deeply in to these. I know of their existence, but not how effective they actually are.

There's also probably some close quarters scenarios where a slug might punch right through body armor, even though, generally speaking, slugs lose energy extremely quickly, and at mid to long range, they're not going to penetrate. Ultimately, it is an 18mm bullet without a lot of powder behind it, so the drop off makes sense, but it's still a lot of mass to deal with when it's leaving the barrel. Even if your armor holds up, taking that hit is probably not going to be fun.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.