Are Soviet platoon/company snipers to effective?

[Apocal]

I haven't noticed snipers being particularly effective at anything but scouting.

edit: outliers aside, of course. I had one sniper who plugged three TCs in a single match. It was amazing.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Apocal

[76mm]

Well read your own link:

During this time, a total of 428,335 non-trained snipers, which significantly strengthened the combat formations of infantry units.

 

Well, if you're going to give someone (who was trying to be helpful) a hard time, best not to rely on Google translate... Actually the meaning is completely different from your "translation":

 

"За это время в общей сложности было обучено 428335 отличных снайперов, которые существенно усилили боевые порядки пехотных частей."

 

"During this time, all in all 428,335 excellent snipers were trained, which significantly strengthened the combat formations of infantry units."

Edited January 26, 2015 by 76mm

[Rokko]

Well, he posted a Russian link. Neither he nor I do speak Russian I assume since he quoted the very same Google Translation, so what should I have done?

Also, I merely responded to what I percieved as a condescending tone.

[DMS]

They are effective only in some cases. When both sides are pined down and exchange rare shots. Sniper can't supress MG-42, sniper can't kill an enemy with every shot. They are not elite spetznaz uber soldiers, all is ok in the game.

[Rokko]

Well they are clearly not totally over the top one-shot-one-kill guys (which is probably a fiction even for today's snipers), but they have an impact on the way infantry combat turns out that seems overstated to me. Considering it is most likely impossible to get any reliable historical statistics (like exact and reliable number of German troops KIA/WIA by scoped rifles divided by total number of German troops KIA/WIA by small arms fire) on that we'll probably not get a definitive answer to this.

[JasonC]

Rokko - a definitive answer, no.  But we can ballpark it.  Since most infantry casualties were caused by shell fire from artillery (mortars rockets and tank shells included), and the most effective small arms were the full MGs, we already know to a certainty that the average infantryman with his personal weapon never hit a damn thing, over the entire war.  (Proof - some made it home alive.  Do the math).  

 

We can ballpark that as saying that if an average scoped rifleman hit one man, ever, he was already outperforming the average infantryman by at least a factor of 7 and probably more like a factor of 10.  (I repeat, hard as it is for many to accept, the brutal reality of combat is that the average infantryman is a *target* and not much else.  They call them the poor bloody infantry for a reason).  Claims aren't kills, of course, but the claim numbers for the leaders are above 400.  A truly gifted sniper is not a few times better than an average rifleman, he is something like 2-3 orders of magnitude more effective than an average rifleman.  Sure there is a steep fall off from the best to the run of the mill...

Edited January 26, 2015 by JasonC

[Rokko]

Now it gets difficult, I am well aware shrapnells and shell fragements are the main killers in any war since WW1 and maybe already earlier, like what? 70% in Normandy and France, right? Thing is, the game does not represent that to its full effect for gameplay reasons and so infantry in general is better at killing other infantry than in real life (since exclusively hurling off map assets at each other isn't very much fun).

 

Also I don't think venturing into the topic of the top-100 or so gets us anywhere. The low end of this top-100 list is in the range of 50 kills, and I believe these numbers as much as I believe in the 517 claimed kills by Rudel, be they German or Soviet or Finnish claims. And that is the top-100, when we are talking about a total of about 450.000 snipers!

[Michael Emrys]

...(since exclusively hurling off map assets at each other isn't very much fun).

 

Oh, I think it is terrific good fun. I think the most fun I ever had in BN was obliterating an entire German company on turn #2 with a three battery rocket attack. Must have been hell for the pixeltruppen, but I smiled and laughed and felt good all over. Easy victories, that's the ticket!

 

 

Michael

[womble]

Now it gets difficult, I am well aware shrapnells and shell fragements are the main killers in any war since WW1 and maybe already earlier, like what? 70% in Normandy and France, right? Thing is, the game does not represent that to its full effect...

Shome mishtake, shurely?

By far the biggest killers on my battlefields are the HE-chuckers. Light and medium mortars and tanks/assault guns kill double what the small arms guys do, every time. Usually more. And the big kill infantry weapons are the Assault teams who have been throwing grenades with reckless abandon.

And that's when we're actually in range of small arms, since those frag casualties include bombing/shelling casualties inflicted miles away from any hostile rifle-calibre bullets.

I think you are confusing "slightly nerfing the effect of HE on infantry to compensate for the fact they're forced to bunch up a bit too close" for "not representing HE to its full effect".

[Rokko]

I remember I once made an evaluation after a scenario I played in CMBN on what percantage of casualties whas caused by what, I'll have to see if I can still find that. But from my perception, especially for scenarios with relatively few tanks infantry does most of the killing in the game. Of course from time to time there is a particular brutal barrage that may skew that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You can't really compare CM battles to results for an entire war. The huge range of artillery means that a lot of real world casualties from artillery take place in situations where the opposing forces are not otherwise within shooting distance of each other. There are no CM scenarios where armies do nothing but exchange artillery fire for days on end.

Also, considering that most CM battles represent tip of the spear-type actions, the amount of artillery present is often understated compared to reality.

[Rokko]

FWIW, I've found my notes from back in the day

The scenario was CW The Mace, 2SS vs Polish infantry.

 

Total enemy casualties (KIA/WIA/MIA): 428

Break down by unit:

I,/SS-PzRgt. 2 (a Panther company if I remember correctly): 111 (25.93%)

II./SS-PzRgt. 2 (a bunch of PzIV probably): 35 (8.18%)

 

Those two were tank units, so casualties probably mainly came from HE and to a lesser degree were

caused by MGs.

 

Now the infantry:

II./SS-PzGrRgt. 3 "D"

    5th company: 72 (16.82%)

    6th company: 21 (4.91%)

 

III./SS-PzGrRgt. 4 "DF" (that one was mechanized infantry I believe and they had Sdkfz 251 support)

    9th company: 33 (7.71%)

  10th company: 73 (17.06%)

 

The rest fell victim to off-map assets,

in total 116 or 27.10%

 

That was a battle against the AI, though. So admittably it is not too conclusive.

Also, looking at these numbers now, to be honest they don't really prove my point all that much

 

Still, in this particular battle 46.49% of enemy casualties were caused by dismounted or mounted infantry companies. Count in tank MGs and you may get to 50%.

[Rokko]

Also, considering that most CM battles represent tip of the spear-type actions, the amount of artillery present is often understated compared to reality.

That is in a nutshell what I was trying to say

[JasonC]

No, fights against the AI aren't very representative. And losses aren't taken by only one side. But that aside, with SPWs and 2 MG42s per squad, what portion of those 200 infantry caused enemy losses do you honestly think were inflicted by the plain riflemen with their K98s? Because the infantry part of that force sports well over 100 full machineguns, between the dismounts of 4 companies (72 LMGs at 2 per squad, plus up to 16 HMGs at 4 per company) - each of which averaged less than 2 kills. There are something like 290 K98s, plus around 50 MP40s.

We aren't discussing the effectiveness of bullets, but of ordinary riflemen. Most of the losses from bullets - themselves only half in your example and lower than that whole war, due to artillery causing more than their share outside CM like settings - are coming from the full MGs. When the infantry is Russian instead of MG42s, the share of full MG hits may be lower - but the share of PPsH hits will be higher. Again, not ordinary riflemen. In your example, I would guess 2/3rds to 3/4ths came from the MGs and the MPs - and that leaves only a third to a quarter - of the infantry 45% or so - for the rifles. Meaning 40 or 50, being generous - with 290 trying. Meaning in your AI buthchering wipe out win, your riflemen might have gotten one sixth or one seventh of one hit, each.

And the riflemen you were wiping out, I'll wager, got practically nothing. Because you run up kill totals that high in one fight with a firce that size only in lopsided victories. But both sides can't be above average in that fashion. So those one sixth to one seventh successes must be averaged in with all those ordinary riflemen clay pidgeons you are tallying. Giving an average performance of a mere rifleman in your battle right around one hit for every 13 present - with a 50% chance of getting shot trying (lol). Expected lifetime hits per engaged rifleman, from the time the balloon goes up to the time a shell or bullet chain saw cuts him in half, 1 over 7.

Riflemen are mostly just targets. The math is entirely unforgiving. You don't get to walk onto a battlefield full of vastly superior weapons and pull your own weight, since one side limps off at least half alive, and it is the superior weapons, not the poor bloody private with his dinky bolt gun, doing the slaughtering.

Snipers are in the superior hunting weapon class in that unforgiving analysis, ordinary riflemen are on the receiving end of all of it. If having a scope and hunting by stealth from cover lets the scoped sharpshooter bag one dude before he snuffs it, it raised his effectiveness 7 fold. Maybe 10, in fact, because the above is still low balling the role of the artillery.

The way the US Army puts it in training, bluntly enough, is that armor does the fighting, artillery does the killing, and infantry does the dying...

Edited January 28, 2015 by JasonC

[Apocal]

How are you guys employing your snipers? I might be messing up because I use them as a scout team on the offense and in place of missing MGs on the defense.

[Zveroboy1]

On the attack I like to just put them with the firebase alongside MGs and mortars but slightly on the flanks, to avoid having them shredded to bits by the arty. That usually means they will be out of command but when I put them with the advancing rifle companies even when trailing behind they tend to die pretty fast for some reason.

 

As scouts they're wasted really. They might spot slightly better than a simple two men team split from a squad, but especially with the Russians when there are no on map mortars and you have to rely on arty with a long delay, they're invaluable for targetting AT guns, if not by destroying them at least to pin them down until the arty finally lands on their positions.

 

By the way, in CMBB you could have a higher level HQ take over a lower one and put units in command directly. This is not possible anymore, is it?

[JasonC]

I use snipers as overwatch forces, like other heavy weapons - MGs and mortars and the occasional ATR.  They tend to stay farther from the enemy than any ordinary infantry units, and sometimes on screening forces, farther from enemies on portions of the front where few forces deploy.  They go stationary relatively soon and watch for defenders.  Occasionally they move forward in empty areas, well after contact is made elsewhere, hoping that defenders have already shifted to other parts of the front etc.  I don't use them as scouts; they are too valuable for that....

[slysniper]

For in game snipers, it can be hard to get them in situations where they can really use their strength. Killing enemy units at range.

But I can still remember the one battle I had a Brit sniper team, both men had scoped rifles and they had the enemy advancing in their sector in pretty open ground. I somehow managed to keep pulling them back just at the right time, just bugging out before enemy arty or mortars hit.

Anyway, at the end of the game they had a total of 22 kills. I did lose one of the two guys at their last location, since it was their final location and an areas to hold. No more pulling back. But it is the one and only time I recall getting any type of amazing numbers out of a sniper.

Defensive placement should not be hard to find, The trick is to find locations that can aid in giving them a advantage. In game Snipers can get kills out to about 400 meters, after that they get rare at 500. But you really don't want them at distances where normal rifles can place accurate fire on them. So I like to find locations where they are about 350-400 meters if possible.

On offence, I like to have them somewhat trailing my lead platoons. I let the platoons find and scout out the enemy. I use the snipers by pulling them up to the front lines after I know of enemy locations that need cleared. If my trooper have the enemy pinned. I just pull them up to what I think is the best place to get killing shots on the enemy unit. if the enemy unit is holding its own and stopping my offensive, then I look to bring the snipers in and hopefully at a range where I can maybe get a killing shot that can swing the battle. Hopefully at the distances I mentioned before.

That is just a few basics as to using them.

[slysniper]

By the way, in CMBB you could have a higher level HQ take over a lower one and put units in command directly. This is not possible anymore, is it?

They still can but it is a little harder to understand at times.

You can click on any unit and see their chain of command, so if the light is green on any higher HQ, they are influencing them.

You can also click on the HQ icon and see who he is influencing.

But they really only will take over and influence units if the lower chain HQ command has been eliminated or is out of control.

So whichever unit is the first unit lit on the chain of command, is the one that is impacting the unit presently the most.

Yes , I know this likely was not very clear as to explaining it.

[Baneman]

If a unit is out of command and a Company HQ is nearby, you wont see the command line - But, you WILL see the eye or voice effect in the unit's UI - that's how you know they're getting some HQ benefit from him being nearby.

[Zveroboy1]

Oh cool.

[Michael Emrys]

I might be messing up because I use them as a scout team on the offense and in place of missing MGs on the defense.

 

That might have something to do with it. I've read a lot of posters who claim to successfully using them as scouts/OPs. But you need to be careful where you place or move them. Well, that's also true if you want to use them as snipers. Whichever, you need to have them in good cover/concealment, both when they are in position and when they are in motion. You especially want them to have a good retreat/displacement route for when the enemy gets close enough to spot them.

 

Michael

[womble]

Yeah, snipers as scouts are definitely "sit and watch; move when safe" types, rather than "ferret around in the woods" types. And they shouldn't be shooting anything without explicit permission...