Are Soviet platoon/company snipers to effective?

[Rokko]

Hi,

in several scenarios now, or rather after several scenarios, I've noticed the Soviet platoon and company level snipers have the highest kill counts in the platoon. You don't really notice them plucking off enemies, but in the end it's like having a 4th squad in every platoon and I wonder, a) has anyone else noticed these snipers to be so effective and is that reasonable? From my understanding these were not really trained snipers but rather two ordinary riflemen of which one was given a scoped rifles.

In the Right Hook at Sopockinie scenario I've designed I made sure to set every sniper unit to Green to somewhat counter that that effect.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You are the first person in living memory to suggest snipers are too effective in the game. That's refreshing.

[DMS]

Yes, they are effective sometimes. And sure they were trained.

[Rokko]

Of course they were trained. I mean were they trained in any special way? I can't really imagine.

Also I just find it weird for one sniper team to be the most effective unit in your rifle platoon and think a discussion about that is reasonable. I would expect the difference between a platoon level sniper team in WW2 and e.g. a USMC sniper team in CMSF to be substantial, comparing them probably doesn't even make sense really.

 

Obviously I am talking about anecdotal evidence here, this is not something you could really test for anyways, I am talking about actual battle conditions not firing range.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Rokko

[JasonC]

Scoped rifles are effective weapons.  Scoped riflemen told off to just pay attention to enemy exposure and pick shots where they can get them are much more effective than iron sights riflemen ordered about by their sergeant and carrying stuff and running messages and ...  The average rifleman is a target.  The average scoped rifleman with nothing else to do along with full machineguns, mortars, and off map artillery belong instead to the category of above average weapon systems that routinely inflicted more than they took.  Which is much rarer than you might suppose...

[Rokko]

I do not doubt the effectiveness of a scoped rifle. I only doubt the margin of how much more effective one scoped rifle is when compared to an entire rifle squad. Totalling up to 1/4 to 1/3 of a platoon's kill (which I have now seen three or four times) just seems too much to me.

[JasonC]

Sorry Rokko, not nearly enough information in that comment.  Are your platoons getting 6-8 kills and the sniper 2 of them?  Are your platoons getting 30 kills and the sniper 10 of them?

What losses are they taking themselves?  What were their engagement ranges?  What enemies did they face?

 

I find that squad infantry can vary from the lead platoon in the heaviest action inflicting 30 casualties, to every other platoon on the field, only lightly engaged, getting only about 5.

But range makes all the difference, for that result.  Ordinary infantry inflicts its heaviest losses at under 100 yards.  If a platoon never gets that close, if will be in single digits at the end of the engagement.

 

Snipers are much longer range weapons.  They are effective to 400 yards and quite effective inside about 250.  They don't want 100 yard engagement ranges - it gets them spotted and killed.

 

I would consider it perfectly normal for my scoped rifles and my HMG teams to account for the majority of the casualties I inflict with infantry, if the enemy stayed at 250 yards or farther throughout the engagement.  Not even 1/4, more like 3/4 (but counting the MGs).  The total would also be low for the whole platoon.

 

If on the other hand a platoon wades in to 100 yards then assaults through an occupied enemy infantry position, after suppressing them enough to close to point blank, then I expect that platoon to wrack up 20 plus kills and maybe twice that.  A lot of them fleeing or cowering enemies already defeated in the knife balance firefight portion, to be sure.

[LukeFF]

From my understanding these were not really trained snipers but rather two ordinary riflemen of which one was given a scoped rifles.

 

No, that is not hardly the case. The Soviets had one of the best - if not the best - sniper programs even before the war even began. They didn't just hand out scoped rifles randomly during the war, even during the bad years of 41-42. If a Red Army soldier was issued a scoped rifle, it's because they went through a strict training program required of all snipers.

[Rokko]

I know they had dedicated sniper schools. But they also had, what? Like 700 Rifle divisions? Are you telling me they send every single platoon level scoped rifleman to a special sniper school? That would be probably hundreds of thousands throughout the war. I'm having a hard time believing that.

[76mm]

According to Frank Ellis' book The Stalingrad Cauldron (p 268), the Soviets trained and deployed 428,335 snipers between 1941 and 1944 (including 1,885 women).

[Rokko]

Sorry Rokko, not nearly enough information in that comment.  Are your platoons getting 6-8 kills and the sniper 2 of them?  Are your platoons getting 30 kills and the sniper 10 of them?

What losses are they taking themselves?  What were their engagement ranges?  What enemies did they face?

 

I find that squad infantry can vary from the lead platoon in the heaviest action inflicting 30 casualties, to every other platoon on the field, only lightly engaged, getting only about 5.

But range makes all the difference, for that result.  Ordinary infantry inflicts its heaviest losses at under 100 yards.  If a platoon never gets that close, if will be in single digits at the end of the engagement.

 

Snipers are much longer range weapons.  They are effective to 400 yards and quite effective inside about 250.  They don't want 100 yard engagement ranges - it gets them spotted and killed.

 

I would consider it perfectly normal for my scoped rifles and my HMG teams to account for the majority of the casualties I inflict with infantry, if the enemy stayed at 250 yards or farther throughout the engagement.  Not even 1/4, more like 3/4 (but counting the MGs).  The total would also be low for the whole platoon.

 

If on the other hand a platoon wades in to 100 yards then assaults through an occupied enemy infantry position, after suppressing them enough to close to point blank, then I expect that platoon to wrack up 20 plus kills and maybe twice that.  A lot of them fleeing or cowering enemies already defeated in the knife balance firefight portion, to be sure.

Sorry I can't recall the exact numbers. Last occurence was a small self designed map. Guards rifle platoon vs a German listening post. One Plt HQ and a half-squad in trenches. The other half-squad in a wooden bunker (no MG), so some 13 enemies who were all KIA or WIA. One of my squads didn't get any kills at all, the one that assaulted the trenches had 5 kills or so (and only 3 guys left as the trench wasn't as thorougly suppressed as anticipated and the German Plt Commander picked off most of the squad with his MP40). The sniper team also had 5 or 6 kills and the rest fell to Soviet Plt commander's squad. I just found that weird/unexpected, since I didn't really notice most of the sniper's kills.

BTW the bunker was strangely taken out by small arms fire only, appears wooden logs don't offer much resistance to Soviet SMG and rifle calibre rounds

[A co]

As I understand it, the game itself doesn't account for differences in historical training levels or effectiveness of certain nations. The factors are experience  level, the plus or minus modifiers, and maybe the modifiers of leaders when in command of the shooter. These can all be adjusted by the scenario designer of course.

The game probably does account for differences in the rifles of each nation, and the scoped Nagan has a pretty good reputation I think. 

Making all snipers green if you think things are out of whack seems like a good solution; that's the scenario designer's prerogative.

Of course choosing the 'typical' quality setting when buying troops would essentially allow the game engine to determine quality based on nation and date.

[womble]

As I understand it, the game itself doesn't account for differences in historical training levels or effectiveness of certain nations. The factors are experience  level, the plus or minus modifiers, and maybe the modifiers of leaders when in command of the shooter...The game probably does account for differences in the rifles of each nation, and the scoped Nagan has a pretty good reputation I think.

It also takes into account the stated specialism of the trooper. Most scoped rifles are carried by a soldier with the "Marksman" specialism, which means they are, personally, inherently better shots (though not necessarily any better at camo or observation like a scout-sniper-school graduate would be) than a non-Marksman with the same soft stats/condition and weapon. Same as a "Gunner" is better at handling their automatic weapon (by which I assume faster reloads, better grouping) than the grunt who picks it up once they're hors de combat.

Or so we have been assured by them as knows.

[A co]

Ah, I didn't know that. I thought those titles were just there for organizational flavor. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

My own opinion is that snipers in the CM games are less effective than in reality. In fact, their effectiveness has been slightly bumped upwards in Black Sea after heavy lobbying from beta dudes.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[JasonC]

Rokko - that is too small an action to form an opinion from, in my estimation.  

 

On the wooden bunker (which may be a related matter since you say you didn't notice where the sniper got his 6), a few logs will not stop a 7.62x54 round (or a Mauser 7.92, or a 30-06 etc - any full caliber rifle round).  But real log bunkers are not a pile of wood, and the game underrates them if it treats them that way, which it sounds like is happening.

 

In a real military log bunker, the logs are building material that is used to contain the actual protective walls.  Which are not wood, but sandbags or rammed earth.  The process is that a trench like hole is first dug to put the men below ground level with a planned firing slit at or not far above ground level (depending mostly on lines of sight, elevation of the terrain and such - they need to be able to see).  The exterior of the hole is lined with two layers of logs, one forming an outer wall (which below ground serves to hold back the earth sides to e.g. prevent collapse from artillery fire nearby), and the second, an inner wall, with typically a 2 foot gap between them (sometimes only 18 inches if the logs themselves are stout enough etc).  That gap is then filled in with rammed earth or sandbags, all the way around the bunker.  A ceiling of logs is next constructed, and then topped off with another 2 feet of earth (typically), which serve as camo as well as protection from overhead hits.

 

The armies of all the major combatants knew what was required to protect such a shelter from a direct hit by a 105mm HE shell, and that was the standard typically applied.  Heavier artillery 150mm and up could KO with a direct hit but only with a direct hit, and the most common weapons - small arms, HMG fire, light and medium mortars, light and medium field artillery - it was meant to be and generally was proof against.  Heavy armor piercing fire could penetrate such a bunker, but normally with little in the way of "behind wall effect".

 

It is not remotely a pile of logs, which would not serve as cover against anything but pistols, SMGs, and light splinters from shell misses...

[JasonC]

As a PS, here is a sample of what 308 at 50 yards does after penetrating about 8 inches of wood, when it hits a soaking wet phone book behind it - 

 

http://www.civiliandefenseforce.com/308penetrationtest.html

 

If "log bunkers" were just 8 inches of wood, they wouldn't protect worth a damn, against full rifle rounds...

[Michael Emrys]

One more thing to consider when comparing the scores of snipers against those of the rest of the platoon is that most soldiers are not natural killers. Many of them seldom if ever fire their rifles, and if they do are seldom likely to hit anything. Snipers, on the other hand, are intentional killers. That's what they are in the field to do and chances are that they are pretty good at it.

 

Michael

[womble]

My own opinion is that snipers in the CM games are less effective than in reality. In fact, their effectiveness has been slightly bumped upwards in Black Sea after heavy lobbying from beta dudes.

In pre-RT games, "Snipers" and "Marksmen" weren't meant to represent school-trained assets. At least not at "Regular, +0, Normal". You wanted something to represent a German school-trained sniper, or a Highland Ghillie or a Adirondack backwoods hunter, you had to bump them to Elite, possibly +2 and High, at least, and that probably still doesn't cover the full extent of such snake-eaters' skills. Even in RT, "Sniper" teams don't have anything other than the "Marksman" accuracy advantage over any other scoped-rifle user of the same soft stats. Maybe the "Marksman" bonus is higher in RT (and presumably BS) because both sides had sniper schools and didn't operate the "designated marksman" policy.

[Rokko]

Rokko - that is too small an action to form an opinion from, in my estimation.  

 

On the wooden bunker (which may be a related matter since you say you didn't notice where the sniper got his 6), a few logs will not stop a 7.62x54 round (or a Mauser 7.92, or a 30-06 etc - any full caliber rifle round).  But real log bunkers are not a pile of wood, and the game underrates them if it treats them that way, which it sounds like is happening.

 

In a real military log bunker, the logs are building material that is used to contain the actual protective walls.  Which are not wood, but sandbags or rammed earth.  The process is that a trench like hole is first dug to put the men below ground level with a planned firing slit at or not far above ground level (depending mostly on lines of sight, elevation of the terrain and such - they need to be able to see).  The exterior of the hole is lined with two layers of logs, one forming an outer wall (which below ground serves to hold back the earth sides to e.g. prevent collapse from artillery fire nearby), and the second, an inner wall, with typically a 2 foot gap between them (sometimes only 18 inches if the logs themselves are stout enough etc).  That gap is then filled in with rammed earth or sandbags, all the way around the bunker.  A ceiling of logs is next constructed, and then topped off with another 2 feet of earth (typically), which serve as camo as well as protection from overhead hits.

 

The armies of all the major combatants knew what was required to protect such a shelter from a direct hit by a 105mm HE shell, and that was the standard typically applied.  Heavier artillery 150mm and up could KO with a direct hit but only with a direct hit, and the most common weapons - small arms, HMG fire, light and medium mortars, light and medium field artillery - it was meant to be and generally was proof against.  Heavy armor piercing fire could penetrate such a bunker, but normally with little in the way of "behind wall effect".

 

It is not remotely a pile of logs, which would not serve as cover against anything but pistols, SMGs, and light splinters from shell misses...

 

Well it was one example, and probably not too unrealistic one as well... I guess I have to finish the Soviet campaign and pay some closer attention to the results regarding snipers (since it's a good sample I think).

I mean given the fact that essentially every nation uses the squad based designated marksmen concept (I still think that that's what theses platoon snipers actually were) is an indication for their above average effectiveness,

but still, the margin baffles me.

 

Regarding the bunkers: Try putting (ingame) an SMG team to the front or the sides of a wooden bunker and give the target command. Many of the bullets will go straight through! Pistol calibre rounds! Something seems off here. On the other hand, in earlier versions of CMBN I remember bunkers sometimes being almost impossible to take out, even with concentrated direct and indirect fire...

 

Also, given your wast knowledge on the Eastern Front, could you comment on the 428,335 number?

It seems reasonable if you assume about 100 snipers per Rifle Division, but no way that's the number that went through dedicated sniper training, right?

[LukeFF]

I know they had dedicated sniper schools. But they also had, what? Like 700 Rifle divisions? Are you telling me they send every single platoon level scoped rifleman to a special sniper school? That would be probably hundreds of thousands throughout the war. I'm having a hard time believing that.

 

You can have a hard time believing it all you want, but the reality is that's the way it really happened. The Soviets did not utilize what came to be known as designated marksmen but rather ensured anyone issued a scoped Mosin or SVT was a person properly trained in how to use it. This was all part of a very strong culture of "snipersim" fostered by the Communist party leadership.

 

http://www.shotgun.com.ua/class/sniping/snip_hist_12.html :

 

As of January 1, 1942, in this structure were trained 14,819 women snipers, and in March and August of the same year - still 39,941

[Rokko]

Well read your own link:

First of all, trained in 1941; in 1942, 1943 and 1944 was carried out by two stages of preparation. During this time, a total of 428,335 non-trained snipers, which significantly strengthened the combat formations of infantry units.

(Bold by me)

Those would be the guys I am talking about. Rough estimate of 100 marksmen per Rifle Division in about 700 Rifle Divisions replaced 6 times over during the war would give you that number.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Rokko

[JasonC]

The 428,000 figure is for those who went through the six month sniper training course, which emphasized marksmenship and the use of the scoped rifle, along with basic fieldcraft. There were 50,000 women who went through that course in 1942 alone; it was not a small thruput operation. There was a smaller elite of about 9500 who attended further advanced training courses after already acting as successful snipers in the field, to learn advanced fieldcraft skills and the like (they didn't need marksmenship skills, they already had them).

[Rokko]

Ok, six months hardly sounds like "non-trained", probably an imprecise or misstranslation by Google Translate. How much is that compared to the average rifleman's basic training? I've found a figure of three months for NCO, so probably less for grunts.

[slysniper]

Since many battles in RT have the Russians packing a bunch of SMG's, it would not be hard to see the snipers getting a good percentage of the kills since they are the only units able to engage decently at range. where as if you are using other units, there is a little more competition getting some of the kills.

 

So i think that might be all that is reflecting in the game that you might be seeing  (place some Brit snipers and have the platoon carrying Brens and you likely could get similar results as long as you first engage the enemy at long range.

 

Actually , have not tested it for awhile, but the settings in the game are pretty good now for what they are trying to protrey as sharp shooters, not snipers.

 

As for the Real deal during WW2, Russia had a excellent Sniper program for another basic fact in that they had many Natural Snipers.

(Meaning there was plenty of guys that had grown up with a rifle in their hand and had already many skills that just cannot be trained in a program and then become experts at it within 6 months)

 

That is still a factor today. Many Snipers come from rural areas where they have hunted from a young age and learned how to kill game, but then the other interesting fact is that the next group of Snipers that make it are then generally guys that never had touched a rifle and have learned all their skills while in the service.