Bud Backer

Any pistol in the game will go 'bang-bang-bang' as fast as you can pull the trigger. That's a luxury bolt action rifles don't have, especially if the rifleman is on his feet and moving. A low chance of hitting the target is not the same as no chance of hitting the target.
People talk of CM casualty rate being too high but we're talking WWII where as many men can die in a single afternoon's battle as died in all eight years of the Iraq war. In the Battle of the Bulge the US saw 89,500 casualties. That averages out to more than 2,000 men a day, every day for 40 days. and that's just the Americans.

No comments because no evidence. 

Based on anecdotal information, I would be inclined to agree. But it is important to remember that this is not saying a pistol is more accurate at that range, just that it’s RoF overcomes it’s inaccuracy relative to bolt action rifles. How true that is, I can’t say. It seems slightly counterintuitive, but I’ve often seen that when one really gets real world data what we expect and what truly happens are not always the same.
PS: tests are invaluable in gathering data, but it’s also important to remember that they are modelling one specific situation: what the tester designed, and that situation may be uncommon or even extremely rare in real battles. How often does a single man with a pistol face a single man with a rifle, both with no cover or concealment? Compound that with the fact that this number (kills/min) is derived from thousands of such encounters, which tends to make what are actually a great number of outcomes distilled into a single number that we see as a singular possibility rather than the full range of possibilities. 

As with many hyperbolic discussions, this one appears rooted in something real, but the signal to noise ratio clouds the message.
One has to refer to this thread, more specifically the comprehensive testing done by @Drifter Man to see where this is coming from. 
 
On page 23 of the PDF he posted, one can see that at 40m the M1911 pistol is showing a higher kills/min rate than 2 of the rifles: the Lee Enfield MkIV, and the Kar98k. At 80m they are roughly on par, as seen on page 24. (I’m discounting the rifles firing rifle grenades as the RoF would be low and their purpose is not the same as rifles firing bullets). 

However, context is king. This is not a first shot kill probability chart. Comparing someone firing a pistol at a target as quickly as possible and easily reloading is not the same as a bolt action rifle. Give each man one bullet and one would see a different result. 
I’d be inclined to say this is a poor understanding of the test and the results, but given the bombastic posting style it’s hard to take as much more than trolling. I find this unfortunate as an open and honest discussion of these results would lead to greater understanding of how things work and why they work a particular way (and perhaps an object lesson in statistical analysis). 
 
 
 

No comments because no evidence. 

There's an old saying. "A bad craftsman blames his tools".

Minute 31-30
AOA 2
Meanwhile on the other end of the Russian lines, things were a lot more quiet. I didn’t want to advance between the two treelines with unsupported armour, but my difficulty in spotting the Marder, or worse, several Marders, makes me want to ensure my tanks can support one another better. I displaced one tank left, and brought infantry close by in the woods to make sure I have more eyes on what’s going on ahead. The smoke from earlier HE fire from my tanks made vision poorer but would not last long, thankfully clearing by turn end.

 RU154
Through the second treeline the Tankodesantniki spot a German HMG and HQ unit. My opponent is moving his men around in conflicting directions. I can’t make a pattern of it. 

 RU155
Among the houses at KT 1 I move 1st Platoon HQ and what remains of 1st Squad from 2nd Platoon to the last house in the row, where the Germans had an HMG I chased out with tank fire. Once I know this is clear, I won’t have to worry about shaped charge weapons to my flanks, just ahead. 

 RU156
With my flanks clear of nearby infantry threats, I feel comfortable giving 1st Platoon HQ T34/85 an armour arc order to wait for the Marders to make an appearance. 

 RU157
Overall, I feel pretty good about the situation. I’m picking off his men little by little, I have plentiful HE ammo in my tanks, and I’m no longer taking heavy infantry losses. I am concerned about what he may have hidden away but by now if he had a powerful reserve I think it would have made an appearance.

Based on anecdotal information, I would be inclined to agree. But it is important to remember that this is not saying a pistol is more accurate at that range, just that it’s RoF overcomes it’s inaccuracy relative to bolt action rifles. How true that is, I can’t say. It seems slightly counterintuitive, but I’ve often seen that when one really gets real world data what we expect and what truly happens are not always the same.
PS: tests are invaluable in gathering data, but it’s also important to remember that they are modelling one specific situation: what the tester designed, and that situation may be uncommon or even extremely rare in real battles. How often does a single man with a pistol face a single man with a rifle, both with no cover or concealment? Compound that with the fact that this number (kills/min) is derived from thousands of such encounters, which tends to make what are actually a great number of outcomes distilled into a single number that we see as a singular possibility rather than the full range of possibilities. 

Ok, dug into this a bit.  Looks like he used a British tank crew and Engineer Bn HQ to test the pistols.  Still not clear on how he isolated the pistol shooter but I will take him at his word.  This is really good and detailed testing btw.  Anyway for the M1911:

So what is the issue here exactly.  If I am reading this correctly, sure the old 1911 could hit someone at 80m but it takes 135 rounds to do it.  That is over 19 mags!!  The M1 took 85 (which is worth looking at as it is a little low at 80m but these are targets in foxholes).  The Lee Enfield and Kar 98 take 65-66 rounds per kill.  The Springfield takes 30.  How are these roughly comparable? (See pg 23 graph).  They do seem comparable on kill per minute but this looks more a function of rate of fire, a semi-automatic pistol being much faster than a bolt action.
This is a lot of hard work but it also misses a big question...how do these weapons compare in suppression?  These would be some interesting results.
As to the OP, did you actually check on this statement before you immediately tied it to your forgone conclusion?  I am betting, no.  God deliver us from lazy trolls.  I have a lot of respect for hard working trolls, they put the time in.  But this trend in lazy trolls who grab nuggets of information out of context just to reverse engineer to their assumption...well that simply will not do.

That, is an excellent point.

Based on anecdotal information, I would be inclined to agree. But it is important to remember that this is not saying a pistol is more accurate at that range, just that it’s RoF overcomes it’s inaccuracy relative to bolt action rifles. How true that is, I can’t say. It seems slightly counterintuitive, but I’ve often seen that when one really gets real world data what we expect and what truly happens are not always the same.
PS: tests are invaluable in gathering data, but it’s also important to remember that they are modelling one specific situation: what the tester designed, and that situation may be uncommon or even extremely rare in real battles. How often does a single man with a pistol face a single man with a rifle, both with no cover or concealment? Compound that with the fact that this number (kills/min) is derived from thousands of such encounters, which tends to make what are actually a great number of outcomes distilled into a single number that we see as a singular possibility rather than the full range of possibilities. 

As with many hyperbolic discussions, this one appears rooted in something real, but the signal to noise ratio clouds the message.
One has to refer to this thread, more specifically the comprehensive testing done by @Drifter Man to see where this is coming from. 
 
On page 23 of the PDF he posted, one can see that at 40m the M1911 pistol is showing a higher kills/min rate than 2 of the rifles: the Lee Enfield MkIV, and the Kar98k. At 80m they are roughly on par, as seen on page 24. (I’m discounting the rifles firing rifle grenades as the RoF would be low and their purpose is not the same as rifles firing bullets). 

However, context is king. This is not a first shot kill probability chart. Comparing someone firing a pistol at a target as quickly as possible and easily reloading is not the same as a bolt action rifle. Give each man one bullet and one would see a different result. 
I’d be inclined to say this is a poor understanding of the test and the results, but given the bombastic posting style it’s hard to take as much more than trolling. I find this unfortunate as an open and honest discussion of these results would lead to greater understanding of how things work and why they work a particular way (and perhaps an object lesson in statistical analysis). 
 
 
 

As with many hyperbolic discussions, this one appears rooted in something real, but the signal to noise ratio clouds the message.
One has to refer to this thread, more specifically the comprehensive testing done by @Drifter Man to see where this is coming from. 
 
On page 23 of the PDF he posted, one can see that at 40m the M1911 pistol is showing a higher kills/min rate than 2 of the rifles: the Lee Enfield MkIV, and the Kar98k. At 80m they are roughly on par, as seen on page 24. (I’m discounting the rifles firing rifle grenades as the RoF would be low and their purpose is not the same as rifles firing bullets). 

However, context is king. This is not a first shot kill probability chart. Comparing someone firing a pistol at a target as quickly as possible and easily reloading is not the same as a bolt action rifle. Give each man one bullet and one would see a different result. 
I’d be inclined to say this is a poor understanding of the test and the results, but given the bombastic posting style it’s hard to take as much more than trolling. I find this unfortunate as an open and honest discussion of these results would lead to greater understanding of how things work and why they work a particular way (and perhaps an object lesson in statistical analysis). 
 
 
 

Based on anecdotal information, I would be inclined to agree. But it is important to remember that this is not saying a pistol is more accurate at that range, just that it’s RoF overcomes it’s inaccuracy relative to bolt action rifles. How true that is, I can’t say. It seems slightly counterintuitive, but I’ve often seen that when one really gets real world data what we expect and what truly happens are not always the same.
PS: tests are invaluable in gathering data, but it’s also important to remember that they are modelling one specific situation: what the tester designed, and that situation may be uncommon or even extremely rare in real battles. How often does a single man with a pistol face a single man with a rifle, both with no cover or concealment? Compound that with the fact that this number (kills/min) is derived from thousands of such encounters, which tends to make what are actually a great number of outcomes distilled into a single number that we see as a singular possibility rather than the full range of possibilities. 

Based on anecdotal information, I would be inclined to agree. But it is important to remember that this is not saying a pistol is more accurate at that range, just that it’s RoF overcomes it’s inaccuracy relative to bolt action rifles. How true that is, I can’t say. It seems slightly counterintuitive, but I’ve often seen that when one really gets real world data what we expect and what truly happens are not always the same.
PS: tests are invaluable in gathering data, but it’s also important to remember that they are modelling one specific situation: what the tester designed, and that situation may be uncommon or even extremely rare in real battles. How often does a single man with a pistol face a single man with a rifle, both with no cover or concealment? Compound that with the fact that this number (kills/min) is derived from thousands of such encounters, which tends to make what are actually a great number of outcomes distilled into a single number that we see as a singular possibility rather than the full range of possibilities. 

As with many hyperbolic discussions, this one appears rooted in something real, but the signal to noise ratio clouds the message.
One has to refer to this thread, more specifically the comprehensive testing done by @Drifter Man to see where this is coming from. 
 
On page 23 of the PDF he posted, one can see that at 40m the M1911 pistol is showing a higher kills/min rate than 2 of the rifles: the Lee Enfield MkIV, and the Kar98k. At 80m they are roughly on par, as seen on page 24. (I’m discounting the rifles firing rifle grenades as the RoF would be low and their purpose is not the same as rifles firing bullets). 

However, context is king. This is not a first shot kill probability chart. Comparing someone firing a pistol at a target as quickly as possible and easily reloading is not the same as a bolt action rifle. Give each man one bullet and one would see a different result. 
I’d be inclined to say this is a poor understanding of the test and the results, but given the bombastic posting style it’s hard to take as much more than trolling. I find this unfortunate as an open and honest discussion of these results would lead to greater understanding of how things work and why they work a particular way (and perhaps an object lesson in statistical analysis). 
 
 
 

Minute 31-30
AOA 2
Meanwhile on the other end of the Russian lines, things were a lot more quiet. I didn’t want to advance between the two treelines with unsupported armour, but my difficulty in spotting the Marder, or worse, several Marders, makes me want to ensure my tanks can support one another better. I displaced one tank left, and brought infantry close by in the woods to make sure I have more eyes on what’s going on ahead. The smoke from earlier HE fire from my tanks made vision poorer but would not last long, thankfully clearing by turn end.

 RU154
Through the second treeline the Tankodesantniki spot a German HMG and HQ unit. My opponent is moving his men around in conflicting directions. I can’t make a pattern of it. 

 RU155
Among the houses at KT 1 I move 1st Platoon HQ and what remains of 1st Squad from 2nd Platoon to the last house in the row, where the Germans had an HMG I chased out with tank fire. Once I know this is clear, I won’t have to worry about shaped charge weapons to my flanks, just ahead. 

 RU156
With my flanks clear of nearby infantry threats, I feel comfortable giving 1st Platoon HQ T34/85 an armour arc order to wait for the Marders to make an appearance. 

 RU157
Overall, I feel pretty good about the situation. I’m picking off his men little by little, I have plentiful HE ammo in my tanks, and I’m no longer taking heavy infantry losses. I am concerned about what he may have hidden away but by now if he had a powerful reserve I think it would have made an appearance.

Minute 31-30
AOA 2
Meanwhile on the other end of the Russian lines, things were a lot more quiet. I didn’t want to advance between the two treelines with unsupported armour, but my difficulty in spotting the Marder, or worse, several Marders, makes me want to ensure my tanks can support one another better. I displaced one tank left, and brought infantry close by in the woods to make sure I have more eyes on what’s going on ahead. The smoke from earlier HE fire from my tanks made vision poorer but would not last long, thankfully clearing by turn end.

 RU154
Through the second treeline the Tankodesantniki spot a German HMG and HQ unit. My opponent is moving his men around in conflicting directions. I can’t make a pattern of it. 

 RU155
Among the houses at KT 1 I move 1st Platoon HQ and what remains of 1st Squad from 2nd Platoon to the last house in the row, where the Germans had an HMG I chased out with tank fire. Once I know this is clear, I won’t have to worry about shaped charge weapons to my flanks, just ahead. 

 RU156
With my flanks clear of nearby infantry threats, I feel comfortable giving 1st Platoon HQ T34/85 an armour arc order to wait for the Marders to make an appearance. 

 RU157
Overall, I feel pretty good about the situation. I’m picking off his men little by little, I have plentiful HE ammo in my tanks, and I’m no longer taking heavy infantry losses. I am concerned about what he may have hidden away but by now if he had a powerful reserve I think it would have made an appearance.

Minute 31-30
AOA 1
My tanks can offer a lot of HE support and suppression.  I will pepper the buildings ahead with HE and charge! This time, the tank riders will be going in on the tanks but not under fire. 
The JS-IIs advance and stop to provide support fire while the Company and Regiment HQ T34s both load up an infantry squad each. The inset shows the action at the map edge to the left.

 RU148
As the men board the tanks, sporadic enemy rifle and HMG fire hits the front of the tanks. The Company HQ T34 fires at the spotted HMG. A Marder is also detected but none of the Russian tanks have LOS. 

 RU149
One JS-II advances, maneuvering to get LOS on the Marder. The German vehicle gets the first shot, which bounces off the thick armour. 

 RU150
The JS-II spots its attacker and returns fire but misses. Smoke and dust break then LOS for both from one another.

 RU151
The spotted HMG and infantry contacts come under fire as well. The enemy is no longer putting out any fire at all at the advancing armour and infantry. One HMG unit takes heavy casualties and breaks. 

 RU152
The infantry in the house behind moves out behind it, not willing to take direct fire any longer. 

 RU153
There is no question I’m pushing him back and disrupting his defences. I have a big open field in front of me that I need to cross but once that’s done I’m actually in the town - the objective itself.
What’s going in at AoA2 is in the upcoming post.

Given the length of time I’ve not touched this it may seem absurd, but it’s been driving me crazy that this isn’t done. On top of that, my computer is dying and I’m not sure I can find installation files for this much older version of CMRT, which is required for compatibility with the turn files. So, I’m giving this AAR another go. I spent a full day working on the graphics for just one turn’s action. Trouble is, that was in a weekend and weeknights I have a lot less time. I hope the fits of starting and stopping every few days won’t kill the enjoyment for anyone trying to follow this. 

You could also look it from the opposite direction: If Battlefront had to do this whole enormous testing suite and statistical analysis, it would have cost them a lot of time - or a lot of money, if they hired somebody to do it.
Now the results are there for the taking, free of charge. If they want to adjust weapon parameters they now have a good starting point.
If they don't want to do it, they are going to spend exactly zero resources on this thread. I'm sure they are fully able to prioritise their own time
I disagree. It's not a cosmetic thing at all. It is relevant to the basic gameplay, and the same improvements would improve several titles, since many of the same weapons are used across the games.
 

+1 to that. Don't listen to the glass half empty, sky is falling or world is coming to an end crowd. Most of us *do* want to see things get better / fixed.
 

I think it greatly matters. For me, a big part of the enjoyment of this game is that it strives to be realistic, both about weapons and tactics.
If I just wanted to see some shooting and big explosions, there would be at least 20 others games I could play that had way better graphics.

Ah, right, in that case the pause command is the right thing to do. 

Didn't miss the point, my comment still stands. Provide proof and raise a bug or live with it. Simples.
MMM