CMRT: Observations from the Firing Range

[Odin]

Great piece of research @Migo441

To me the iron sight bolt action rifles look to be far too inaccurate at longer ranges. I recently read Richard Holme's 'Tommy', where refers to evidence which demonstrates that British infantry in the run up to the First World War were trained with Enfields to hit targets at 600 yards with a relatively high accuracy rate (sorry I don't have the book to hand so can't cite the exact page and information at the moment, but can do later). Anecdotally, I can also point to an old friend of mine who was a weapons instructor in the British Army in the early 1950s. The Enfield was still the weapon of choice at the time, and again he has told me 600 yards was the standard for a competant conscript infantryman. 

Now I accept that that both of these instances refer to trained infantryman, shooting static targets on the firing range. However, the CM accuracy rate of 350 shots per casualty at 300m for a regular soldier armed with a K98 seems far too inaccurate to reflect the weapon's RL accuracy in the hands of a competant soldier -  which I'd expect a 'regular' solder in CM to be.

What are other people's thoughts on this?

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Odin

[shift8]

The range of the qual is irrelevant. 

You can qualify expert in the US Army 300m rifle qual and miss every single 300m target that comes up. 

Second,

Shooting at 600m works on the range. Shooting at 600m without optics in combat is VERY hard. On a range, you KNOW the target is EXACTLY 600m away. In real life, you guess. There is also the issue of having a good zero. In a qual, you have time to get one. You will often not have this opportunity in real life. And if your weapon does not have a good zero, you WILL NOT be hitting things at 600m or even 300m on your first shot 90% of the time. 

When I was in Afghanistan we used to re-zero our weapons every 2 weeks or so. The reason for the repetition is because even good weapons and optics lose their zero over time as they get banged around and such. We always had a fob to return to after a mission. During ww2 this may have been possible at certain points in the campaign, but something tells me that in major offensives during ww2 people didnt get alot of chances to re-zero. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Thanks @shift8 that makes a lot of sense.  I was really wondering about @Odin's assertion that rifle men should be hitting targets at 600m.  It is good to hear from someone with experience.  I have only ever done basic training and we passed with some hits at 100m and some lower number at 200m.  It has been so long ago that I cannot remember the details.  We certainly did not even try to shoot anything further away than that.  I am sure that if I had actually spent time in the Infantry and not being a truck driver for less than a year I would have had more training so I know less than squat about it really.

[Rinaldi]

Yeah @shift8 hit the nail on the head with that, words out of my mouth.

3 hours ago, IanL said:

  I have only ever done basic training and we passed with some hits at 100m and some lower number at 200m.  It has been so long ago that I cannot remember the details.  We certainly did not even try to shoot anything further away than that.  I am sure that if I had actually spent time in the Infantry and not being a truck driver for less than a year I would have had more training so I know less than squat about it really.

Even then Ian the infantry aren't reasonably expected to hit much further with great consistency; especially now as most NATO forces are using carbines. Finally, range conditions versus combat conditions...

On the personal note one of the main reasons I love the Combat Mission series is because it captures just how much ammo has to be expended in an infantry firefight for casualties to begin mounting. Make no mistake, its still a lot lower than it is in reality, but take it as an acceptable abstract.  

[Migo441]

@Bulletpoint, thanks for resurrecting this thread!  Couple things:

1.) I do agree with the people pointing out "combat conditions" which makes any comparison to firing range statistics or experience problematic (to put it mildly).

But that brings me to...

2.) Wouldn't we expect the "combat conditions" to affect all weapon types?  The part that nags at me isn't necessarily the accuracy of the rifles, it's the accuracy of the rifles relative to the other types.  At 240m, the accuracy of the LMG and rifle types are tightly bunched.  At 300m, the LMG types are notably MORE accurate (1) than the rifle types.  Is that defensible? 

Likewise with the comparison between rifles and SMG types at, say, 120m.  It's not necessarily that "rifles suck" but it's "do SMGs suck more than rifles enough?" when focused on accuracy.

3.)  And why are the SMGs almost as accurate at 180m as they are at 120m?  I'd think that effectiveness would degrade hugely in that span.  (again, allowing all due caveats about limited sample sizes of the testing, etc...)   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.) Using average rounds per casualty as a surrogate for accuracy.  So the answer isn't a matter of more bullets thrown; the LMG types are shown to be more accurate per bullet.

[shift8]

1 hour ago, Migo441 said:

@Bulletpoint, thanks for resurrecting this thread!  Couple things:

1.) I do agree with the people pointing out "combat conditions" which makes any comparison to firing range statistics or experience problematic (to put it mildly).

But that brings me to...

2.) Wouldn't we expect the "combat conditions" to affect all weapon types?  The part that nags at me isn't necessarily the accuracy of the rifles, it's the accuracy of the rifles relative to the other types.  At 240m, the accuracy of the LMG and rifle types are tightly bunched.  At 300m, the LMG types are notably MORE accurate (1) than the rifle types.  Is that defensible? 

Likewise with the comparison between rifles and SMG types at, say, 120m.  It's not necessarily that "rifles suck" but it's "do SMGs suck more than rifles enough?" when focused on accuracy.

3.)  And why are the SMGs almost as accurate at 180m as they are at 120m?  I'd think that effectiveness would degrade hugely in that span.  (again, allowing all due caveats about limited sample sizes of the testing, etc...)   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.) Using average rounds per casualty as a surrogate for accuracy.  So the answer isn't a matter of more bullets thrown; the LMG types are shown to be more accurate per bullet.

Yes, for two reasons. 

 

The first is that the statistic data does not really show how accurate the rifles are per shot. A bolt rifle must reset after each shot. It would have a higher average accuracy per shot, not necessarily every 10 shots etc. The first shot may also be a easier target to make, and the second harder for whatever reason. etc etc. 

 

Second, fully automatic fire has a high degree of practical "accuracy" on the battlefield. Particularly against a moving target. Hitting something you weren't shooting at would still be a hit. There is also the advantage tracers give, for LMGS. And for SMGS, the general volume of fire contributes to the ability to correct the next shot. Especially when we are referring to weapons that may not have a perfect zero. If I fire one shot from my Mauser and the zero is off, it misses because it is a point target missed by a single point projectile. If I see a man at 100m with my MP-40 and  I let off a burst, I might still hit him with the spray. 

[Odin]

You make some great points @shift8 and I agree that accuracy under combat conditions is going to be nowhere near as high as it is on the shooting range. However, I still think that the bolt action rifle results in Migo's tests are perplexing and very likely show that rifle fire in CM is too inaccurate - which is something I have suspected anecdotally from just playing the game over the last few years. 

A point about your argument, you mention shooting on a range is easier because targets are placed at specific intervals which sights could be adjusted for. That point is also true for shooting with a scope, so I don't see that can help to explain the vastly improved accuracy of scoped rifles which migo's results highlight. The 300 maximum range which migo conducted his test at is also well within what a rifleman with an iron sight bolt action would be expected to hit with far more frequency than migo's results suggest. Again I agree that in the field opportunities to zero in sights are going to be infrequent, but it's the sheer inaccuracy of the bolt action rifle fire in CM, highlighted by Migo's tests, which for to me undermine these compensating factors. Excuse me for presuming, but I imagine you trained with an assault rifle, rather than a bolt action? Semi-auto assault rifles have many advantages over bolt actions of the type like the K98 or Enfield, but accuracy isn't one of them.

Just to go back to the source I referred to (Richard Holme's Tommy). He quotes a section from the British Army Field Service Regulations of 1909. This defined rifle ranges of 600 yards and under as 'close', 600 and 1,400 as 'effective',1,400 and 2,00 as 'long', and 2000 to 2,800 as 'distant'. Holmes himself writes that in 1914 an enemy presenting himself to rifle fire in the open at ranges less than 600 yards was in 'very serious trouble'. Now he is talking about the 1914 regular army, whose marksmanship training far surpassed the conscript one of 1916 onwards. However, Migo's test was conducted with 'regular' units firing at a static target, without cover, at half (and under) the 600 yards quoted by Holmes. 

My second source worked day-in-day-out for a couple of years instructing conscripts how to use Enfield rifles. He is also sure (I have spoken to him again since my first post), that a competent conscript armed with an Enfield would have results which far surpassed the stats recorded by migo's tests (to the point where the CM results are incomparable to real life rates of accuracy). No doubt CM has some combat compensator which significantly lowers accuracy from what could be achieved on a firing range. However, even after all these compensating factors are taken into account, I don't think it is reasonable to claim it's historically accurate for it to take 280 shots+ for a 'regular' infantryman, armed with a bolt action rifle, to hit a static man sized target 300m away presenting itself without cover. .

@IanL my opinion is based on two reputable sources, not just a hunch. The first is evidence cited in Holmes's Tommy (pp377-379) the second is a former British Army weapons instructor who trained conscripts in the early 1950s to use the Enfield rifle (and most of the small arms available to Commonwealth troops in CM).

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Odin

[Odin]

On 22/04/2016 at 10:20 PM, shift8 said:

The first is that the statistic data does not really show how accurate the rifles are per shot. A bolt rifle must reset after each shot. It would have a higher average accuracy per shot, not necessarily every 10 shots etc. The first shot may also be a easier target to make, and the second harder for whatever reason. etc etc. 

 

2

I think it shows exactly what the average accuracy per shot is. There is no way a bolt action firing at a static target should have a higher rate of inaccuracy than an LMG, as automatic or quick semi-automatic fire is not going to give the shooter the opportunity to reset his aim with each bullet fired. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Odin

[Migo441]

13 hours ago, Odin said:

There is no way a bolt action firing at a static target should have a higher rate of inaccuracy than an LMG...

This is what I keep coming back to.  The collected data shows the LMG42 is more than TWICE as accurate as the K98 at 300m in the sense that, on average, a casualty is caused every 151.98 rounds fired as opposed to 360.75.

That just doesn't feel right.  This isn't "practical accuracy"  insofar as I attempted to control for it.  The targets were stationary 2-man teams with action spot gaps between them.  Automatic fire supremacy against moving targets shouldn't be an issue and the next closest target team is centered 16m away laterally in either direction, i.e., I would not expect a miss to hit a different target team.

What would have a better chance to hit per trigger pull?  Of course the automatics (setting aside sniper rifles) and that's understandable.  A burst with 4-7 bullets gets 4-7 different chances to hit and that counts for something.  But what would have the better chance to hit per bullet?  Should be the rifle all the way.  I don't see how it can't be the rifle.

[akd]

Targets appear to be placed on a forward slope.  This will hugely bias test in favor of automatic weapons given CM's burst fire dispersion system (tends to walk fire up from impact point).

[shift8]

On 4/25/2016 at 8:53 PM, Odin said:

You make some great points @shift8 and I agree that accuracy under combat conditions is going to be nowhere near as high as it is on the shooting range. However, I still think that the bolt action rifle results in Migo's tests are perplexing and very likely show that rifle fire in CM is too inaccurate - which is something I have suspected anecdotally from just playing the game over the last few years. 

A point about your argument, you mention shooting on a range is easier because targets are placed at specific intervals which sights could be adjusted for. That point is also true for shooting with a scope, so I don't see that can help to explain the vastly improved accuracy of scoped rifles which migo's results highlight. The 300 maximum range which migo conducted his test at is also well within what a rifleman with an iron sight bolt action would be expected to hit with far more frequency than migo's results suggest. Again I agree that in the field opportunities to zero in sights are going to be infrequent, but it's the sheer inaccuracy of the bolt action rifle fire in CM, highlighted by Migo's tests, which for to me undermine these compensating factors. Excuse me for presuming, but I imagine you trained with an assault rifle, rather than a bolt action? Semi-auto assault rifles have many advantages over bolt actions of the type like the K98 or Enfield, but accuracy isn't one of them.

Just to go back to the source I referred to (Richard Holme's Tommy). He quotes a section from the British Army Field Service Regulations of 1909. This defined rifle ranges of 600 yards and under as 'close', 600 and 1,400 as 'effective',1,400 and 2,00 as 'long', and 2000 to 2,800 as 'distant'. Holmes himself writes that in 1914 an enemy presenting himself to rifle fire in the open at ranges less than 600 yards was in 'very serious trouble'. Now he is talking about the 1914 regular army, whose marksmanship training far surpassed the conscript one of 1916 onwards. However, Migo's test was conducted with 'regular' units firing at a static target, without cover, at half (and under) the 600 yards quoted by Holmes. 

My second source worked day-in-day-out for a couple of years instructing conscripts how to use Enfield rifles. He is also sure (I have spoken to him again since my first post), that a competent conscript armed with an Enfield would have results which far surpassed the stats recorded by migo's tests (to the point where the CM results are incomparable to real life rates of accuracy). No doubt CM has some combat compensator which significantly lowers accuracy from what could be achieved on a firing range. However, even after all these compensating factors are taken into account, I don't think it is reasonable to claim it's historically accurate for it to take 280 shots+ for a 'regular' infantryman, armed with a bolt action rifle, to hit a static man sized target 300m away presenting itself without cover. .

@IanL my opinion is based on two reputable sources, not just a hunch. The first is evidence cited in Holmes's Tommy (pp377-379) the second is a former British Army weapons instructor who trained conscripts in the early 1950s to use the Enfield rifle (and most of the small arms available to Commonwealth troops in CM).

 

Your assertions are understandable but I still disagree. 

You mention the difference between scopes and irons sights. A Non-Zeroed scope is far far far, more easy to adjust shots with. This is because you are much more zoomed in, and can see more precisely where the round hit. Even when there is dust this is still a major assist. Sometimes with scopes you can even see the bullet trail. 

 

Second, the world war one information does say a whole lot to me IMHO. Someone, or a groups of someones, standing in the open at 600m is going to be in a bad way. That doesn't mean that you are getting getting picked off with single shots. I would put down money that if we placed some infantry at 600m in CM right now, and had them get shot at from 600m in the open they would get mauled. Same with 300m. 

 

As for the rifles, I have shot bolt actions as well. This includes a Nagant and a 1903 Springfield. It is very very easy to miss a target 300m without a good zero, and accurate knowledge of the range. And the difference in practical accuracy of the M4 or M16 to a ww2 bolt rifle is not really significant inside of 300m. Even the M4 with the short barrel is a tac-driver at 300m. Shooters that miss at the range are making mistakes, rather than the rifle being the limiter. IIRC, the marines still qualify out to 500m with their M16's. 

 

With a bolt rifle you will likely lose sight picture after each shot. Not so with LMG's. If you have weapons with no zero, and precise range is not known, it is much easier to get a man in two short burst than 3-4 rifle shots. This is due to the fact that if I shoot and miss with the MG, my second burst occupies a larger space, and therefore my compensation doesn't need to be as good. Each bolt rifle shot must be right on the money. 

[shift8]

Also I have conducted some brief testing in CMRT under worse conditions and Im getting nowhere near Migo's numbers. Im using flat terrain with grass etc, and even combining all round fired from standard squads from all weapons types im averaging about 50 rounds a casualty. 

 

[shift8]

On 4/25/2016 at 11:36 AM, Migo441 said:

This is what I keep coming back to.  The collected data shows the LMG42 is more than TWICE as accurate as the K98 at 300m in the sense that, on average, a casualty is caused every 151.98 rounds fired as opposed to 360.75.

That just doesn't feel right.  This isn't "practical accuracy"  insofar as I attempted to control for it.  The targets were stationary 2-man teams with action spot gaps between them.  Automatic fire supremacy against moving targets shouldn't be an issue and the next closest target team is centered 16m away laterally in either direction, i.e., I would not expect a miss to hit a different target team.

What would have a better chance to hit per trigger pull?  Of course the automatics (setting aside sniper rifles) and that's understandable.  A burst with 4-7 bullets gets 4-7 different chances to hit and that counts for something.  But what would have the better chance to hit per bullet?  Should be the rifle all the way.  I don't see how it can't be the rifle.

Your impression of machine gun accuracy is not correct. GPMG's and LMGS have extremely good accuracy in single shots. I have seen people fire single rounds from a 240B out to 600m............more than once. 

 

At 300m, the difference in MOA accuracy between these weapons in academic. Misses will be due to shooter error, not weapon limits. Also, the MG's are shooting from bipods, which is a major advantage. 

[Odin]

 

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

Your assertions are understandable but I still disagree. 

Second, the world war one information does say a whole lot to me IMHO. Someone, or a groups of someones, standing in the open at 600m is going to be in a bad way. That doesn't mean that you are getting getting picked off with single shots. I would put down money that if we placed some infantry at 600m in CM right now, and had them get shot at from 600m in the open they would get mauled. Same with 300m. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

The group was out in the open on Migo's test, so it reflects the same or similar circumstances to the handbook quoted by Holmes. You can't really believe it is realistic to take 280 shots+ for a bolt action to hit such a target at 300m? 

I have also run my own test where I traversed a German grenadier platoon on flat open terrain for 12 minutes moving laterally back and forth across three Soviet 'regular' teams positioned 280m-330m away (distance depending on the location of the squads they were firing at). At times the German squads were walking at other times they were running. The Soviet teams shooting at the Germans were:

- A one man scoped sniper - scored 9 casualties

- A two man squad, each armed with SVT-40 semi-automatic rifles - scored 5 casualties

- a two man squad, each armed with Mosin Nagant - scored 0 casualties

This was the first and only time I ran the test, and both two man squads expended over 100 rounds. They represent the conditions specified by Holmes, except they were less than half the 600 yard range he mentioned. Unlike your expectation the squads did not get mauled by the bolt actions and going by these results, my experiences in the game, and Migo's tests I just don't believe bolt action rifle accuracy comes anywhere close to reflecting RL rates of accuracy (going by what my two sources state - and both refer to experiences with bolt action rifles).

Edited April 29, 2016 by Odin

[CMFDR]

I'm being on the fence here as it's, understandably, hard to find accuracy figures collected on the actual battlefield. However here are some in test conditions :

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2eff2.pdf

[shift8]

8 hours ago, Odin said:

 

The group was out in the open on Migo's test, so it reflects the same or similar circumstances to the handbook quoted by Holmes. You can't really believe it is realistic to take 280 shots+ for a bolt action to hit such a target at 300m? 

I have also run my own test where I traversed a German grenadier platoon on flat open terrain for 12 minutes moving laterally back and forth across three Soviet 'regular' teams positioned 280m-330m away (distance depending on the location of the squads they were firing at). At times the German squads were walking at other times they were running. The Soviet teams shooting at the Germans were:

- A one man scoped sniper - scored 9 casualties

- A two man squad, each armed with SVT-40 semi-automatic rifles - scored 5 casualties

- a two man squad, each armed with Mosin Nagant - scored 0 casualties

This was the first and only time I ran the test, and both two man squads expended over 100 rounds. They represent the conditions specified by Holmes, except they were less than half the 600 yard range he mentioned. Unlike your expectation the squads did not get mauled by the bolt actions and going by these results, my experiences in the game, and Migo's tests I just don't believe bolt action rifle accuracy comes anywhere close to reflecting RL rates of accuracy (going by what my two sources state - and both refer to experiences with bolt action rifles).

You are forgetting that the infantry in the game are visually abstracted. They are not a 1 to 1 representation. CMX2 shows more of the visual, but the squads are still fundamentally a series of markers whose actual actions are being calculated mathematically behind the scenes. So for example, on open ground they are statistically finding cover where it cannot be visually scene etc. General assumptions about finding dips in the earth etc. 

 

I have done similar testing, and any unit that was standing when fired on at 300m got torn to pieced until it hit the earth. I watch a squad inflict about 1 casualty per 50 rounds from 300m while both units were hiding against the earth with the default grass etc. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by shift8

[womble]

52 minutes ago, shift8 said:

You are forgetting that the infantry in the game are visually abstracted. They are not a 1 to 1 representation. CMX2 shows more of the visual, but the squads are still fundamentally a series of markers whose actual actions are being calculated mathematically behind the scenes. So for example, on open ground they are statistically finding cover where it cannot be visually scene etc. General assumptions about finding dips in the earth etc. 

Almost. What's abstracted is the terrain, not the troopers. Whether they become a casualty or not depends first of all on whether an effective round's trajectory intersects their actual polygons as drawn on-screen. The abstraction happens after that: they get a "terrain save" based on their soft factors, their posture and the terrain they're actually in. No, the troopers are not just "a series of markers"; where their polygons are drawn matters.

So yes, it's possible for troops to be "hiding in a 40cm dip", and it not be visually rendered, but it's the dip that's abstracted, rather than the trooper.

[shift8]

2 hours ago, womble said:

Almost. What's abstracted is the terrain, not the troopers. Whether they become a casualty or not depends first of all on whether an effective round's trajectory intersects their actual polygons as drawn on-screen. The abstraction happens after that: they get a "terrain save" based on their soft factors, their posture and the terrain they're actually in. No, the troopers are not just "a series of markers"; where their polygons are drawn matters.

So yes, it's possible for troops to be "hiding in a 40cm dip", and it not be visually rendered, but it's the dip that's abstracted, rather than the trooper.

Yes this is what I meant. 

I did not mean to imply that the the physical locations and bullets etc are abstracted. IMO, this is what a marker is for. 

[Odin]

 

 @CMFDRgood to see some WWII War Office stats. They roughly seem to match the comparative weapon effectiveness illustrated by Migo's test results at 200 yard ranges. A few points though. Firstly, the bolt action results in Migo's test dramatically drop off after 220 yards. Unfortunately, the WO stats quoted do not contain data to compare like for like at longer (200 yard+) ranges so it's difficult to quantify Migo's longer range results next to the WO's; and it is at longer ranges where my issue is, as I don't know why in CM the per shot accuracy fired from a bolt action rifle should be dramatically  less accurate than the average per shot accuracy of an LMG at the 300 yard mark. This is not to say that the LMG is a less effective weapon at the 300 yard range I've focused on, as I agree LMG rates of fire make it a more deadly weapon. My point is that iron sight bolt action rifles in CM seem to be next to worthless at the 300 yard mark, which I don't think matches RL accuracy levels; and while the other weapons show a relatively steady curve of decliningg accuracy, the iron sight bolt actions drop off a cliff edge after 240 yards.

A couple more points. Firstly, you highlight the sentence in the WO report which concludes that the Sten is more efficient at 200 yards than the rifle. Again, due to its rate of fire I don't completely discount this. However, there are two major caveats to consider. Firstly, the Sten's advantage seems to come from its 4 round burst, rather than the accuracy of each shot fired. Single shot accuracy in the WO's test shows that the rifle is almost twice as accurate as the Sten in the when both weapons fire single shots from 'unrested' positions. The WO's stats do not contain 'rested' firing position results for the rifle, if they did we can only presume its accuracy level would increase. Another major factor is that the report mentions that the '200 yard' test was infact carried out on a 30 yard range, which means that they just shrunk the size of the target to represent a man standing 200 yards away. This is a poor way of testing the sten's accuracy as it has a much lower velocity than rifle which would be more adversely affected by range. Due to the test being carried out on a 30 yard range, the report would have failed to take account of this critical element and, therefore, its estimates of accuracy at 200 yard are spurious to say the least. 

@shift8 The abstraction you mention should apply to all small arms fire, so I'm don't think it should sway results in favour of one type of gun over another.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Odin

[shift8]

42 minutes ago, Odin said:

 

 @CMFDRgood to see some WWII War Office stats. They roughly seem to match the comparative weapon effectiveness illustrated by Migo's test results at 200 yard ranges. A few points though. Firstly, the bolt action results in Migo's test dramatically drop off after 220 yards. Unfortunately, the WO stats quoted do not contain data to compare like for like at longer (200 yard+) ranges so it's difficult to quantify Migo's longer range results next to the WO's; and it is at longer ranges where my issue is, as I don't know why in CM the per shot accuracy fired from a bolt action rifle should be dramatically  less accurate than the average per shot accuracy of an LMG at the 300 yard mark. This is not to say that the LMG is a less effective weapon at the 300 yard range I've focused on, as I agree LMG rates of fire make it a more deadly weapon. My point is that iron sight bolt action rifles in CM seem to be next to worthless at the 300 yard mark, which I don't think matches RL accuracy levels; and while the other weapons show a relatively steady curve of decliningg accuracy, the iron sight bolt actions drop off a cliff edge after 240 yards.

A couple more points. Firstly, you highlight the sentence in the WO report which concludes that the Sten is more efficient at 200 yards than the rifle. Again, due to its rate of fire I don't completely discount this. However, there are two major caveats to consider. Firstly, the Sten's advantage seems to come from its 4 round burst, rather than the accuracy of each shot fired. Single shot accuracy in the WO's test shows that the rifle is almost twice as accurate as the Sten in the when both weapons fire single shots from 'unrested' positions. The WO's stats do not contain 'rested' firing position results for the rifle, if they did we can only presume its accuracy level would increase. Another major factor is that the report mentions that the '200 yard' test was infact carried out on a 30 yard range, which means that they just shrunk the size of the target to represent a man standing 200 yards away. This is a poor way of testing the sten's accuracy as it has a much lower velocity than rifle which would be more adversely affected by range. Due to the test being carried out on a 30 yard range, the report would have failed to take account of this critical element and, therefore, its estimates of accuracy at 200 yard are spurious to say the least. 

@shift8 The abstraction you mention should apply to all small arms fire, so I'm don't think it should sway results in favour of one type of gun over another.

It would in the scenario I was quoting, since the other weapons were either more accurate or could take advantage of opportunities better. This would in general be the case in more realistic scenarios, not necessarily on ranges. 

Also keep in mind that Migo's tests, despite what controls he added, are not really accuracy tests. They only reflect casualties per shots fired in a specific scenario. I also noted that at the ranges he tested, the accuracy of those weapons is more or less the same. Particularly the LMG's. I dont understand where you guys are getting this idea that LMG's are some how less accurate per shot than a bolt rifle. In practical terms, it is simply not the case. The SMG's are a different matter, but again, automatic fire etc. And Migo's tests at no point demonstrated single shot accuracy for those weapons. 

I own a number of weapons, but in particular I have AKM that used to have a issue where the front sight post didn't adjust. This made it extremely difficult to hit any target over 75m if there wasn't some kind of backdrop to see the deviance from. So difficult in fact, that you could go 10 rounds or so without hitting a man sized target at 150-200m. 

[CMFDR]

4 hours ago, Odin said:

 @CMFDR

(...) Firstly, you highlight the sentence in the WO report which concludes that the Sten is more efficient at 200 yards than the rifle. (...)

Hi Odin,

I might be misreading it or could be over-picky here but Sten's accuracy isn't what is mentioned, it only says that the average firer have a better change hitting a target at 200 yards with a Sten than with a Rifle, that's all. Now my interpretation of that affirmation is that the accuracy of the rifle itself isn't a consideration, quite the opposite as it seems to be more about the volume of fire when it comes to hit a target for "the average firer".

Now what does it mean regarding CM and does it makes Migo's tests more or less valid? I really don't know man, all these figures thrown at my brain just doesn't ring any bell. All I see is interpretation since we don't have any way to actually track individual bullet and thus see what happen to its accuracy around that 240 m mark. Plus, what if test is performed with Crack rather than Regular, do they hit their target more often?

Edited May 1, 2016 by CMFDR

[Odin]

7 hours ago, shift8 said:

It would in the scenario I was quoting, since the other weapons were either more accurate or could take advantage of opportunities better. This would in general be the case in more realistic scenarios, not necessarily on ranges. 

 

 

 

2

I don't know on what basis you can make that assertion of accuracy, and it doesn't seem to based on any evidence other than your opinion.

7 hours ago, shift8 said:

I dont understand where you guys are getting this idea that LMG's are some how less accurate per shot than a bolt rifle. In practical terms, it is simply not the case.

 

 

 

2

One thing that the WO results do show is that when a Bren fires a burst at 25 yards, from a rested position, it had a wider cluster (4 inches) than the rifle's cluster (3.1 inches) which was fired from an unrested position. When the Bren fires a single shot from a rested position, its cluster is almost identical to the rifle's - which was at the disadvantage of being from an unrested position. In CM LMG's fire in short bursts rather than single shots, so why is it that Migo's CM test show LMGs to be twice as likely at scoring a hit, per shot, than a rifle should at 300m range?

Why do the bolt action rifle effectiveness results dramatically tail off  in CM at ranges over 220m, no other weapons hit rate drops off like that?  

7 hours ago, shift8 said:

I own a number of weapons, but in particular I have AKM that used to have a issue where the front sight post didn't adjust. This made it extremely difficult to hit any target over 75m if there wasn't some kind of backdrop to see the deviance from. So difficult in fact, that you could go 10 rounds or so without hitting a man sized target at 150-200m. 

 

 

 

2

This seems to confirm that the SMG accuracy results in the WO tests quoted by CMFDR are flawed. 

4 hours ago, CMFDR said:

I might be misreading it or could be over-picky here but Sten's accuracy isn't what is mentioned, it only says that the average firer have a better change hitting a target at 200 yards with a Sten than with a Rifle, that's all. Now my interpretation of that affirmation is that the accuracy of the rifle itself isn't a consideration, quite the opposite as it seems to be more about the volume of fire when it comes to hit a target for "the average firer".

 

 

 

4

Yes I agree the WO test results for burst fire do not indicate per shot accuracy and I said as much. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, the WO test was actually carried out on a 30 yard range with the 200 yard results just abstracted from firing the guns at 30 yards. That is a fundamentally flawed way of test the effectiveness of any weapon, as it doesn't take into account the variables that occur when the weapon is actually fired at 200 yards. Everything I've read about the sten suggests it was relatively poor when firing at such ranges: It seems to be supported by this vet who says it was good at close quarters but was ineffective at 100 and 200 yards:

Shift8's experience firing an AK, which also has none adjustable front sights, seems to support this view.  The WO test results seem to be seriously flawed when it tries to abstract 200 yard range effectiveness from a 30 yard firing range test.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Odin

[shift8]

On 5/1/2016 at 5:38 AM, Odin said:

I don't know on what basis you can make that assertion of accuracy, and it doesn't seem to based on any evidence other than your opinion.

One thing that the WO results do show is that when a Bren fires a burst at 25 yards, from a rested position, it had a wider cluster (4 inches) than the rifle's cluster (3.1 inches) which was fired from an unrested position. When the Bren fires a single shot from a rested position, its cluster is almost identical to the rifle's - which was at the disadvantage of being from an unrested position. In CM LMG's fire in short bursts rather than single shots, so why is it that Migo's CM test show LMGs to be twice as likely at scoring a hit, per shot, than a rifle should at 300m range?

Why do the bolt action rifle effectiveness results dramatically tail off  in CM at ranges over 220m, no other weapons hit rate drops off like that?  

This seems to confirm that the SMG accuracy results in the WO tests quoted by CMFDR are flawed. 

Yes I agree the WO test results for burst fire do not indicate per shot accuracy and I said as much. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, the WO test was actually carried out on a 30 yard range with the 200 yard results just abstracted from firing the guns at 30 yards. That is a fundamentally flawed way of test the effectiveness of any weapon, as it doesn't take into account the variables that occur when the weapon is actually fired at 200 yards. Everything I've read about the sten suggests it was relatively poor when firing at such ranges: It seems to be supported by this vet who says it was good at close quarters but was ineffective at 100 and 200 yards:

Shift8's experience firing an AK, which also has none adjustable front sights, seems to support this view.  The WO test results seem to be seriously flawed when it tries to abstract 200 yard range effectiveness from a 30 yard firing range test.

That is assertion about accuracy isn't really my opinion. Muti-shot weapons have a objective advantage against moving targets due to follow up.

The LMG's have higher accuracy because firing bursts means a higher potential for casualties to be caused. This would compensate for the number of rounds used overall in most situations. Simply put if I fire 2 3 round burts and my point of impact for round 1 is off, rounds 2-3 might hit, meaning 3 shots per kill. But if I have a rifle and my point of impact is off, it is simply off. I have to try again with the same chance of missing as the first shot. Meaning in the long run it will take more trigger pulls. 

Migo's tests do not show per-shot accuracy as you state. They only shoe kills per rounds fired. This does not auto-translate into a measure of the MOA accuracy of the weapons system. 

 

 

My AK was semi-auto, and my point was to demonstrate that without a zero firing single shots caused high rates of missing. 

[Odin]

19 hours ago, shift8 said:

Simply put if I fire 2 3 round burts and my point of impact for round 1 is off, rounds 2-3 might hit, meaning 3 shots per kill. But if I have a rifle and my point of impact is off, it is simply off. I have to try again with the same chance of missing as the first shot. Meaning in the long run it will take more trigger pulls. 

 

 

 

 

 

4

This statement is not backed up by any of the evidence presented. CMFDR's WO evidence clearly shows that single shots from an 'unrested' iron sight bolt action are more accurate than burst fire from an LMG which had the advantage of being fired from a rested position. Your logic about a burst of three bullets from an LMG being more likely to hit a target than three individual rounds from a rifle does not make sense either. The guy firing the rifle has the chance to readjust his aim with his second and third shot if he misses with the first; while someone firing a burst of 3-4 shots from an LMG misses, they have to fire another burst to readjust their aim and could end firing 9-12 bullets for a rifleman's three.

 

19 hours ago, shift8 said:

Migo's tests do not show per-shot accuracy as you state. They only shoe kills per rounds fired. This does not auto-translate into a measure of the MOA accuracy of the weapons system. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is not correct both Migo's test and my test took account of WIA, as well as KIA. It is also reasonable to presume that the game translates x percentage of hits into casualties. If the results were close I'd agree it would be hard to pinpoint whether rifle or LMG fire is more accurate in CM. However, given CM's huge discrepancy in accuracy between iron sight bolt actions and LMGs at ranges over 240m it is logical to assume that the game's algorithms have LMGs marked down as far more accurate weapons, per bullet fired, than iron sight bolt action rifles at medium and long ranges. This IMO does not reflect the statistical and historical evidence presented by myself or CMFDR's WO report.

To summarise my view: to me LMGs' advantage over rifles at medium to long range should be their rate of fire, not accuracy. Their rate of fire alone make them more effective weapons in RL. However, the game seems to also incorrectly give LMGs accuracy advantages over iron sight bolt action rifles. I believe bolt action iron sight rifles are next to useless in CM at medium and long ranges given the huge amount of rounds it takes for an iron sight bolt action to inflict a casualty on an exposed target (so area fire doesn't come into it). Medium range squad rifle fire against exposed targets in CM should probably be similar to tank fire. It takes a few shots for the squad to find their range and adjust their sights accordingly and then fire, which is far more accurate than the CM test results represents, starts to go in against the target. Given the evidence I'm resting my argument on, I feel that iron sight bolt actions should have a per bullet accuracy rate somewhere between a scoped rifle and an LMG in Migo's test. As it is though, rifle fire is literally way off the mark.

Scroll to around 2.45 in this video to get a vet's opinion of the enfield in the hands of a trained infantryman:

 

I've said all I've got to say on the matter for now, so until some new evidence is posted I'm going to give this thread a rest.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Odin

[Sublime]

@Odin

Im almost certain that at least a few if not few hundred tests have been done to see how many rounds on average it.d take to kill or seriously wound enemy soldiers and all found it was a fairly astronomically high number. Now that automatic weapons are much more common  Im sure the numbers higher but it doesnt change my near certainty that it took a lot more than 28 .303 cartridges on average to kill a landser.