Infantry related

[VladimirTarasov]

I'm not sure if any of you have experience shooting, But when I was in the army I would shoot targets with an iron sight to ranges like 200 meters with accuracy. In game, Soldiers are missing enemies from distances of 50 meters. Especially Russian and Ukrainians, Last time when I was playing I had a Infantry squad open up one a moving US squad from 25 meters and the US squad was able to get into the building next to them with taking one casualty. Now I'm sure one soldier from 25 meters can mess up a whole squad in an ambush like this. Especially with the enemy moving in the open street. I've also opened this topic to discuss about Infantry tactics, And discussions related to it. 

[Currahee150]

Well...my experience in shooting is sparse as well. But I distinctly remember after sprinting through a FTX course that shooting the Ivans that popped up got a whole lot harder as I got more winded. CM reflects that with fatigue levels. Further, shooting at the range is a whole different ball game. When qualifying with M16s, we had 1) a bright sunny day, 2) an assigned target lane, and 3) a spotter that would tell you "target, left, 100 meters." Also, none of the targets were moving. The 200m targets were even day-glo orange. Of course, I guess that has less to do with hitting a target and more with target acquisition, which wasn't the point you are bringing up.

Basically, I feel like shooting in combat is an entirely different level than qualifying at the range (no offense). In combat, even with the enemy at 25 meters, accuracy is not guaranteed. Combat is loud and disorienting, your target is moving, and you may have no idea what is happening. Besides, small arms fire apparently has less to do with hitting your enemy (initially) and more to do with pinning him down so you can maneuver and close with him and then kill him with accurate fire. That being said, sometimes I do feel like the accuracy is frustrating is CMBS, but considering how much ammo gets expended in places like Afghanistan to just kill a couple of Taliban, it may not be far of the mark. Just my 2 cents.

[gnarly]

In addition to @Currahee150's various combat related parameters likely to effect shooting accuracy, I'd also add that any incoming fire (or even perceived possibility of incoming fire) is likely to significantly (?) degrade one's accuracy compared with a shooting range. Again, not criticism, just commentary.

[db_zero]

Shooting on a range under controlled conditions is one thing. I never shot anyone, but had the unfortunate experience of having loaded guns pointed at me by people more than willing to shoot and being chased down by someone with a gun. I've also pointed a gun at people to defend myself which was more than enough to make them decide it was not worth their life.

I've spent hundreds of hours being trained by experts and fired thousands of rounds. Never comes close to the experience and feeling of the real thing. The theory is you spend time practicing so that if the time comes you just react and do what you've been trained to do without thinking. I hope that all the training I took and the continuing practice I do will never have to be put to use.

You can immediately go up to a person who's been in a gunfight, ask how many rounds they fired and they will swear that they fired 1 or 2 rounds. You take the magazine out of their weapon and it can be empty. The person isn't lying and in their mind they really believe and think they just fired 1 or 2 times.

I do think that the widespread adoption of quality optics can and has changed the equation in some situations.

Personally the best way to deal with enemy infantry is the dirtiest and most unfair way-catch them by surprise at point blank range and spray them down from behind where they have zero opportunity to fire back.

In game terms I too would like to hear what works and what doesn't work. In my mind when I shoot it out with my opponent he always gets the breaks and I always get the short end of the stick...but that could very just be all in my mind.

What was the skill and fitness level of the troops and were they fatigued? I find green , poorly motivated troops are pretty piss poor and anything, but dying.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The US military conducted a series of surveys and studies during the Iraq war based on infantry combat, and generally found that there was limited correlation between range and combat experience in regards to bullets hitting targets.  Only the very best good on the range hit reasonably well in combat (so the folks shooting something like 36+/40 targets on the qualification range), and even then that was not so much a guarantee of performance.  

One of the training events we started doing towards the end of Iraq (so 2008-2010 timeframe) was the stress-shoot, which involved doing some heavy physical activity before engaging usually a more truncated range (so something with targets going out to 100-150 meters at most instead of the usual 300 meters) to help be less of a better shot, and more of an okay shot that is not as strongly affected by the battlefield.   There was also a lot more shoot house/close quarters type training because realistically that presented the most critical environment for the infantryman's personal weapons.  

Which is to say infantry combat is a lot less concrete than it overly appears.  While shooting at 25 meters on a range might as well be blasting fish in some sort of wooden container, in combat, poor sightlines, cluttered spaces, high chaos, stress etc all introduce increasing levels of difficulty, which makes a total wiff entirely possible. 

[Splinty]

The enemy return fire has a little to do with it also.

 

[sburke]

The enemy return fire has a little to do with it also.

 

They are shooting back?!

 

Ha the sound mod used for Task Force Spartan Resolve has a guy shouting, "this would go a lot faster if I wasn't being shot at!"

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The enemy return fire has a little to do with it also.

What?  I mean it's just pinging off the frontal slope of your...

Oh.  Ooooooh.   Okay yeah that'd be a problem.

[db_zero]

I'm still trying to get a handle on the infantry aspect of the game. So far my h2h experience has been against a very good opponent who has a lot of games under his belt and has lost very few. We're also playing games in very urbanized maps. They say MOUT is the most difficult and challenging. 

I find the Americans are more forgiving, but that being said and done I'm discovering them to be highly vulnerable to RPG's especially when they are in buildings. As for the RPGs teams, it seems like you may want to buy some extra RPG teams and make sure they are of good quality and use them like snipers. The auto grenade launchers are also deadly, but take time to position and deploy.

I'm trying to figure out if mortars using airburst are effective in urban areas-especially against enemy firing from windows.

Do you keep squads intact or break up? The firepower from intact squads is impressive, but one RPG or shell burst means lots of dead or wounded men. Creating a scout team provides useful recon ability, but if discovered are easily lost and they don't have a whole lot of firepower.

LOS is always a touchy subject and I'm not sure how reliable the LOS tool is when it comes to urbanized maps.

Building can provide cover, but also become death traps.

[Abdolmartin]

I'm still trying to get a handle on the infantry aspect of the game. So far my h2h experience has been against a very good opponent who has a lot of games under his belt and has lost very few. We're also playing games in very urbanized maps. They say MOUT is the most difficult and challenging. 

I find the Americans are more forgiving, but that being said and done I'm discovering them to be highly vulnerable to RPG's especially when they are in buildings. As for the RPGs teams, it seems like you may want to buy some extra RPG teams and make sure they are of good quality and use them like snipers. The auto grenade launchers are also deadly, but take time to position and deploy.

I'm trying to figure out if mortars using airburst are effective in urban areas-especially against enemy firing from windows.

Do you keep squads intact or break up? The firepower from intact squads is impressive, but one RPG or shell burst means lots of dead or wounded men. Creating a scout team provides useful recon ability, but if discovered are easily lost and they don't have a whole lot of firepower.

LOS is always a touchy subject and I'm not sure how reliable the LOS tool is when it comes to urbanized maps.

Building can provide cover, but also become death traps.

RPGs are indeed very deadly. Their only downside is that when fired from within buildings, they suppress the firing team. But the AGS-30 has an awesome ~30s setup time if I remember correctly, and it's the greatest advantage (IMO) that the Russians have against the US. Especially with the troops being much more closely packed together in the game than in real life.

[sburke]

Love MOUT battles

First thing I check is what way is the wind blowing and how strong.  Then I check who all has smoke and demo charges

[db_zero]

American squads have the AT-4. Doesn't this have a firing mode for building that is very devastating and is designed to be fired from withing building? I never see them used against infantry in buildings. RPGs on the other hand are used against building a lot.

[Abdolmartin]

American squads have the AT-4. Doesn't this have a firing mode for building that is very devastating and is designed to be fired from withing building? I never see them used against infantry in buildings. RPGs on the other hand are used against building a lot.

If you give American infantry a target command, they will (almost immediately) use their AT-4s, but their autonomous use of AT-4 against enemy infantry is rarer than autonomous Russian use of RPGs.

The AT-4CS (CS stands for "Confined Space") is designed to have a smaller backblast making it suitable for use from within buildings.

[VladimirTarasov]

My experiences are quite different, Our commander made us run a few laps around the training zone then he would make us shoot. And I was hitting targets very well to even 100 meters, I'm sure I still can. Soldiers have a different mentality, We sign up knowing we can die for our country. And in certain situations like combat I would say we can be more effective, We'll take orders better as we may risk the lives of others. Fatigue does make it very hard to shoot, But 25 meters should be nothing especially if you have the surprise advantage.

Sburke, I usually assume the area is evacuated of civvies and I level the area out   

[sburke]

 

Sburke, I usually assume the area is evacuated of civvies and I level the area out   

I usually find scenario designers to be too stingy with artillery. 

[Currahee150]

Ok, well, even if you are a pretty good shot under stressful conditions, it doesn't mean the rest of your squad is.

What?  I mean it's just pinging off the frontal slope of your...

Oh.  Ooooooh.   Okay yeah that'd be a problem.

 This is underrated.

[VladimirTarasov]

Currahee150, You're right there, But some of the shooting in the game really makes me angry, I wish I could be sent into the scenario and beat up my guys  

[Currahee150]

"No you idiot! Don't use your Javelin on one guy! Don't you see that f****** T-90 over there?"

*T-90 blows up missile team*

 

 

[db_zero]

My experiences are quite different, Our commander made us run a few laps around the training zone then he would make us shoot. And I was hitting targets very well to even 100 meters, I'm sure I still can. Soldiers have a different mentality, We sign up knowing we can die for our country. And in certain situations like combat I would say we can be more effective, We'll take orders better as we may risk the lives of others. Fatigue does make it very hard to shoot, But 25 meters should be nothing especially if you have the surprise advantage.

Sburke, I usually assume the area is evacuated of civvies and I level the area out   

Do a search on the internet. It may be old, but still relevant. The FBI did a study on gunfights and most took place at 7 yards or less and most shots fired missed their human sized targets completely. I don't know or remember all the specifics, but this included trained personnel. Its not military specific, but the basic point is valid. Shooting at paper/steel targets is one thing, but once it gets real things happen.

Unless you're a complete psychotic sociopath with absolutely no fear or feelings, you're going to go through instantaneous psychological changes when its real and that is going to have a huge effect on your actual performance. Maybe someone with a PHD can give a more detailed explanation. Fearing for your life and safety is going to affect you. Its hard to describe unless you've been through it and it affects people differently.

Other factors can come into play. Years ago there was an event called the North Hollywood shootout. Those shooters were on Phenobarbital to calm themselves down and enhance their shooting performance - at least that was the probable intent. I saw stories about Iraq where the insurgents were injecting themselves with stuff to enhance their performance. The Germans during WW2 used speed.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Even in a training event, you're going from exertion to "I will be shooting at these target things"

Actual gunfight transition is "I hate this place, this smells terrible.  I hate this place, this smells CONTACT CONTACT CONTACT"

It's not really something you're easily prepared for.  And while it might not make sense, or seem reasonable, all realistic surveys of infantry combat seem to indicate there's a major disconnect between range/training performance, and actually putting lead into things.  

[IICptMillerII]

Read "On Killing" by (ret.) Lt Col David Grossman (also a retired Army psychiatrist) and a lot of the shooting (and missing) mechanics will make total sense. 

[VladimirTarasov]

I understand in ambush circumstances that infantry will most likely panic, But in my certain case I was the guys who were doing the ambush. Which would mean my men should be ready, I even had a cover arc set out.

[Lethaface]

Imagine enemy soldiers standing some 25m away with automatic weapons pointing your direction. Doesn't sound like a situation anyone on earth would actually stay 'calm' for good reasons. Average person better change their underwear afterwards hehehe. I suppose nerves and spray & pray factor go way up at close range, even if you are actually doing the ambushing.  That's basically what I see in the game and it seems realistic to me, apart from upping the tension. SSSSHHHHhooooot m already *********!!!!!

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

There's a long history of infantrymen having issues engaging targets at any range.  It's not consistent, but:

1. Again, there's lots of gunfights and engagements that are done at very close range, with lots of shots fired, that result in fairly few losses.  This isn't a standard response, but sure happens sometimes.  If infantry combat was as hyper-lethal as we expect it to be with accurate rifles and good shot shooter men, we'd have run out of infantry pretty fast in all wars.  

2. In a game that attempts to simulate the unpredictable nature of combat, there will always be times were an outlying outcome (total wiff at 25 meters, catastrophic tank kill with RPG from 300 meters etc) occurs.  The circumstances may not be as transparent as some of it in reality, as it's not like "freaking out because this is the first time they've seen the enemy at close range/they were distracted by talking about how attractive Vanya's sister is and how collectively the squad would like to put their tube steaks in her" is a status message.  
 

[slysniper]

Well, if you have a problem with the poor shooting in the game.

Then take into account, that in the game the guys getting shot at are not reacting like they would in real life either.

Yes in the game you see a squad continue to run in a line as they are receiving fire. RL. them jokers are hitting the deck , scattering for anything that looks like cover or something along those lines.

So making the shooter more accurate might make sense, but only when the targets get a little more realistic also.

For now, in most situations, the game has the balance about right.

Most of the time, a ambush will do a number on the enemy.

But the game always give you surprises, so learn to live with them moments instead of the complaints all the time.

We been playing the game for how many years now, must not all that bad as to how it works