Most of us already know most of this, but this is a nice overview of the medical facts about starvation.

Scientific American: How long can a person survive without food?

I found the survival without water to be interesting- 1 to 3 weeks. That's a lot longer than I would have expected. But this is for bedridden patients, not persons outdoors in a survival situation.

Speaking from the viewpoint of someone being in a vegetative state and having left a medical directive: I find it a bit disturbing that someone might continue to live that long.

My husband and I have both left simple instructions for the agreement of more than one doctor and only pain medications to be given as deemed needed, and for hydration ONLY.

I don't believe in prolonging life needlessly, but I also don't want the end to be any more torturous than can be helped.

Too bad our auto pilot functions don't recognize that the rest of the brain has "left the building." <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

not exactly consistant with the rule of 3s is it

What's the "rule of 3's"?

The rule of 3s goes something like...

3 hours without warmth
3 days without water
3 weeks without food

Exceed those limits and you might want to use that SAK to carve your tombstone..

I think I got that right but I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm a little off.

Seems reasonable, for a reasonably fit person in an outdoor survival situation. Perversely enough, the average super-sized american can probably survive a lot longer without food now-days.

LOL ... Sad but true. Hey there's my excuse for having dessert after dinner. I'll just tell the wife "but honey I just want to make sure that if I get stranded in the woods on my next camping trip that I will be able to survive without food long enough to make it home to my loving family." <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Brian:

I thought it was 3 on a match from WW1.

1.) Strike the match and light your cigarette, they spot your position.

2.) Light the second mans cigarette, and they line up the sights.

3.) Light the third mans cigarette, and they shoot him.

Bountyhunter

Brian:

You realize that if she throws the dessert away, your marriage may be in trouble <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

There was a part of a TV show reinacting the death by starvation of a man (traveling salesman?) in OR, I believe. He had told his wife or someone which route he was taking, but changed his mind at the last minute and took another road. I want to say it was Oct or Nov, & the road was closed almost immediately after he turned onto it. At some point, his truck slid off the road in the snow.

He had a bit of food with him, could eat snow, but basically, he just waited for someone to come and rescue him, despite knowing that no one knew where he was. I think they figured he died about Feb. It was a god-awful long time.

A ranger (?) had reported that he had traveled the road after closing, to make sure that no one was still there. But afterwards, I think he admitted that he had just "assumed" that no one was on the road.

If the program was accurate, he never did anything to help himself. He never started a fire or smoke signal (there had to have been some clear days, even in OR). It turned out that he slid off the road where the snow was the deepest, and never checked ahead or behind him, where the snow was lighter -- they said he should (might?) have been able to make it back to the junction of the main road, which was traveled.

He just sat there until he died, like he was afraid to get out of the truck and get his feet wet.

They knew what he had been doing (& not doing), because he spent most of his time writing letters to his wife, until the starvation affected his sight.

A kind of sicko footnote at the end of the segment: when they found him, his wallet had been stolen from his body.

Long distance traveling, but no food supplies.
Probably a working cigarette lighter, but he made no fire.
Three rear-view mirrors, but never tried to signal.
Not injured, but never tried to look up or down the road to see if there was ANYTHING.

The only thing we can say for him is that he didn't panic and run through the trees, tearing his clothing off and die of hypothermia. (That would have been quicker, though...)

Sue

Bountyhunter: The way I heard that 3-on-a-match story was that in the trenches, you'd light up the buddy to one side of you, then the buddy on the other side of you, then yourself. When lighting up your buddies, the match light didn't indicate (well) where their heads were in relation to the light. But when you lit up yourself, the enemy knew the light was directly in front of your face, so could try for a head shot by hitting the light. -- Bear

Dchinell;

Either way, I would not want to be the third man on the match.

Here's another WW1 & WW2 ditty from the archives of combat survival. You are a rifle toting grunt and have just taken a dump and your platoon is ahead of you and out of sight. Just as you finish hitching up your pants, 3 enemy combatants appear coming over a rise about 100 yards away from you. You can make out the weapons of each and determine that one has a shotgun, the other has a submachine gun, and the third man has a rifle.

Who do you shoot first, and why?

Bountyhunter

Shoot the guy with the rifle first. Heck, shoot him twice just to make sure. The guy with the shotgun (did the German's even issue shotguns?) is not likely to be carrying slugs, and probably couldn't hit me at 100 yards with them anyway. Assuming I'm still an American, the sub guns of WWII (MP40's) were not terribly accurate, and at 100 yards wouldn't have much oomph even if they did hit you. That Mauser on the other hand, I don't want to deal with.

Fortunately, with an M1 Garand, you can probably get all three... And not even have to reload.

Gotta love battle rifles... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Carbines don't do a thing for me.

Greg

I just thought of another- 3 minutes without air

Hey, bounty
shoot the farthest one first, followed quickly by the middle man, and lastly, the closest one, that way, the two left standing don't (maybe) go for cover when they see the first target go down. That's the popular theory, anyway... I'd prefer to call in an air strike and take out the enemy troopers that I can't see, no sense in taking any chances..."You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other poor b*****d die for his country" General George S. Patton <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

I would shoot the rifle barrer first, but during WWI if you saw a shotgun it wasn't a german. The german's thought we were barbarians for using shotguns during wartime, and announced that any American captured with a shotgun would be promply shot.

Here's my take on the problem:

First, shoot the rifleman. Depending on his markmanship, he may be a very serious threat.

Second, shoot the submachinegunner. If he carefully devotes 1-2 magazines to you, your number is going to be up. A bullet from 4" barreled 9 mm. Luger pistol using German military ammo will have velocity of a little more than 1000 fps. at 100 yds. The SMG has a significantly longer barrel so we would expect the velocity to be increased by approximately 200-300 fps at the muzzle, with a retained velocity in the area of say 1150-1250 fps at 100 yds.

The shotgunner is the least threatening. His pattern is likely to be spread over a broad area. I also suspect pellet drop at that range might be a variable the shooter would neglect to address. Assuming a muzzle velocity of about 1300fps, and 00 buckshot (54 grs. at .33" , a popular size, but who really knows what size pellets would be used if for some reason the Germans were using shotguns), the retained velocity might be around 600-900 fps (WAG) making it still dangerous at 100 yds. IIRC, 00 Buckshot has a calculated maximum range (based on Journee's {sp?} formula of 660 yds. I also seem to recall that someone (NRA/Hatcher/?) actually measured the range and found it to be about 500 yds. Even if 1 or more pellets hit you but did not happen to kill you immediately, consider the prospects for wound treatment. Infection would be highly likely, and the treatment available would not seem promising.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

John

wildcard163:

Sorry, but Johnbaker had it right except that the premise originally taught was regarding accuracy of each weapon and not velocity at the distance in question.

Submachine guns were often considered "trench brooms" and unlike todays excellant MP5 or the Uzi were not really designed for extended range accuracy.

Enemy combatants need not be German regulars so shotgun use by non-regular forces was still a possibility even if German soldiers did not use them.

Bountyhunter

Yeah, I sort of figured that, and I read right over the top of WW II scenerio, so I guess that leaves out the possibility of calling in TacAir, but I still like the idea of immense overkill, maybe I could have flagged down one of Patton's tanks, huh? <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
By the way... Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

Troy