Clarity

[Mustang]

Let me clarify some issues:

1. Flamethrowers attract so much fire becuse they are so leathal. I know, in the game thay are not much, but consider this: They are very usefull when the situation demands heavy firepower, and you can wait for a FT to come up becuse the alternitive is to charge bravely and send your folks a meadal. Now, a FT is a grave threat to any stratiegic defense like bunkers. Therefore they recive priority in targeting. Anybody in a foxhole will shoot at them first, and bunker MG'ers will shoot them first becuse they promise sure, univoidable, and PAINFULL death. Even tanks are in danger. In real life they were and are bullet magnets becuse of there leathality, and this is modled into the game.

2. Sharpshooters are indeed snipers, and it is an insult to many WW11 vetran snipers to imply that they were otherwize. True, the first snipers were chosen for there scores at the rifle range, but most of them were southren sure-shots nontheless, as even then a good shot with a rifle was none too common. Equipped with scoped springfeild rifles from WW1, these southren boys were quite capable of making long shots. And as the war progressed, they became better and better. This is reflected on the fact that you should always buy Vetran or higher. Also, out of neccesity,many importu sniper schools popped up. So you can expect your vetran sharpshooters to make 1000 yard shots sometimes. Sorry, boys but your butting heads with a WW11 buff. I first learned about CM from an ad in WW11 magizine!!!!!

I hope this helps.

[Patgod]

Originally posted by Mustang:

Sorry, boys but your butting heads with a WW11 buff.

lol, you seem to think that makes you anything but common around here.

[Auggy]

I found this game by doing a search for Military weapons.(tanks n such) I just luckily stubled upon this site. I think BTS could sell this game a lot more if they had more advertising.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Patgod:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mustang:

Sorry, boys but your butting heads with a WW11 buff.

lol, you seem to think that makes you anything but common around here.</font>

[YankeeDog]

Mustang -

Thank you so much for your elucidatory post. There have been a few moderately knowledgable individuals who have posted here on the forum in the past. The cirriculum vitae of past posters were adequate - military historians, those with a few books published on WWII military history and the like, but never have we had a "WW11 buff" in our midst.

We are indeed blessed.

Normally, of course, I would ask for the source material you used to draw your conclusions. However, with someone of your background and expertise, this is clearly not necessary. I now consider the above issues you raised about snipers/sharpshooters and Flamethrowers closed and I see no further need for posts on these matters.

I'm sure you have a very busy schedule what with the articles you are working on for various "WW11 magizines" and of course your lecture circuit, but if you have any spare time, I'm sure Steve and Charles could really use your help with CMBB. We're all waiting very impatiently for it's release, and I'm sure with your assistance, things will move along much more quickly.

If you don't mind, I do have a few questions regarding your post, though:

In paragraph number 1 you state, "... and you can wait for a FT to come up becuse [sic] the alternitive [sic] is to charge bravely and send your folks a meadal [sic].

When, exactly, did the practice of commanding officers sending their own parents medals originate, and what were the reasons for this practice? I am not familiar with this custom.

In paragraph number 2, you state, "True, the first snipers were chosen for there scores at the rifle range..."

I am unfamilar with the term "there scores" - is this some sort of special scoring system devised to rate a potential sniper?

Later in the paragraph 2, you state, "Also, out of neccessity, many importu sniper schools popped up"

What exactly did these importu schools involve, and where did they originate? the name "importu" sounds French to me, but I had not heard of it before your post.

I could, of course, go on and on with questions about a post as information laden as yours, but in the interests of brevity, I will withold my further queries for another time.

Thanks again for sharing your expertise with the masses.

Respectfully,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

Snork!

Michael

[Cortes]

In other words, Mustang..

OWNED!

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Mustang -

Thank you so much for your elucidatory post... ...never have we had a "WW11 buff" in our midst.

Bwahahahahaha *snort*hahah[giggle]hahaha(teeheeeheeeheee)ha...aha...ha...aha...*snort*...[chortle]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Mustang -

Thank you so much for your elucidatory post... ...never have we had a "WW11 buff" in our midst.

Bwahahahahaha *snort*hahah[giggle]hahaha(teeheeeheeeheee)ha...aha...ha...aha...*snort*...[chortle]</font>

[JasonC]

The spelling was poor. The statements about snipers were entirely accurate. The stuff about FTs fits CM but was hardly exhaustive.

The truth on the latter score being, CM FTs are targeted as though they were as dangerous as ASL FTs, when in CM they are nothing like that effective. Arguably they overcorrected ASL overmodeling in two different respects. FT pricing fits a more effective weapon too, so there is evidence the degree to which FTs suck in CM was not wholly intentional.

The snide retorts strike me as wholly unnecessary. Those indulging in them look ten times as ridiculous as the fellow they are trying to deride. They are also acting like bullies who think they own this place; they do not. Don't let the jerks get you down.

[Mustang]

Thank you kindly, Jason.

My dear fellow Yankee Dog,

Thank you so much for your elucidatory post. There have been a few moderately knowledgable individuals who have posted here on the forum in the past. The cirriculum vitae of past posters were adequate - military historians, those with a few books published on WWII military history and the like, but never have we had a "WW11 buff" in our midst.

We are indeed blessed.

Why, thank you. The porpuse of my post is for the ones around here that do not have a deep knolage of the second world war, and play the game becuse of it's exellence. I thought that I might help give some perspective to these people, and underline some important facts. Also, I found it horrible that the misconceptions of of snipers in the second world war as mere sharpshooters was so widespread around here. Also for these relitivly un-WW11 educated pepole was the comment "WW11 buff". I also put that in to distinguish the fact that my topics were open to constructive criticisim, in other words, I make no claim to being an expert.

Normally, of course, I would ask for the source material you used to draw your conclusions. However, with someone of your background and expertise, this is clearly not necessary. I now consider the above issues you raised about snipers/sharpshooters and Flamethrowers closed and I see no further need for posts on these matters.

Why, I am flattered. You suffer from the misconcepton that I consider myself a absolute athority on the second world war. I make no such claims. My sorce materieal on the matter, is actually many books I have read over the years, most of them with eye-wittnes accounts of vetrans that fought in the war. This is were I learned of the leathal nature of flamethrowers, and many marines commented that a flamethrower is a bullet magnet becuse the Japaneese bunker defenders had no wish to die a horrible painfull death. On the subject of snipers, I have read quite a few first-hand accounts from the second world war, and this is what gives me most of my information. Also, about CMBB, I think if any one of us here at Bfront forums were allowed to help with the new game, we all could make a diffrence. Any one of us, to ask reasonable questions and give constructive critisisim.

If you don't mind, I do have a few questions regarding your post, though:

In paragraph number 1 you state, "... and you can wait for a FT to come up becuse [sic] the alternitive [sic] is to charge bravely and send your folks a meadal [sic].

When, exactly, did the practice of commanding officers sending their own parents medals originate, and what were the reasons for this practice? I am not familiar with this custom.

This remark means that by charging bravely into the enemys MG fire, you will get killed and your parents will recive your meadal. If you did not understand this, than I am afraid you might not be as clever as you think.

In paragraph number 2, you state, "True, the first snipers were chosen for there scores at the rifle range..."

I am unfamilar with the term "there scores" - is this some sort of special scoring system devised to rate a potential sniper?

For one that seems so qualified to critisise another, one would think that you yourself would be at least slightly knolageable about the second world war. "There scores" refers to the rifle range in basic training. At the end of basic training, the recruits would go to the rifle range and fire there weapons at targets. I am sure you know all about rife ranges, so I shall not bore you with the details. There 'offical' scores went on record, and this record was of course part of there personal informatin, that of course wound up on the troops roster in HQ overseas. It was a minor detail, but when the demeand for snipers grew to alarming size, a sniper was chosen for his scores at the boot camp rifle range.

Later in the paragraph 2, you state, "Also, out of neccessity, many importu sniper schools popped up"

What exactly did these importu schools involve, and where did they originate? the name "importu" sounds French to me, but I had not heard of it before your post.

"Importu" is in fact an Engilish word, that means 'makeshift", or "hasty". These schools solved the problem of not enough snipers on the front line by training new ones. Let me also add that later in the war, dedicated sniper training camps were established in the states, with much better training being provided than availiable at the overseas 'importu' camps. I am shocked. I would expect that one with such a wonderfull education would know this word.

So, to conclude, your post YD seems to try to imply that I am a fool mucking around where I do not belong. A very intresting standpoint for one who leaves his own post so open to counterattack. It would seem by your remarks that you know even less than me, the lowly 'buff'. My post was not only meant to clear up some issues, but be a catalyst for more detailed discussion. Unfortanatly, somebody who will remain nameless apparantly thought he was clever enough to critizise my post and not recive the whiplash that fools so rightly deserve. Unless you come up with your own credentials, or proof of book sales, than I hardly think that you have the right to elevate yourself to the lofty post you have chosen for yourself.

To Cortes: I am on the collage debate team. Possesion is nine tenths of the law.

And with this, I respectfully bow out. I look forward to your rebuttal.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Originally posted by Mustang:

"Importu" is in fact an Engilish word, that means 'makeshift", or "hasty".

Ahhhh, yeah. Sure. I'm not sure how the English language will have changed by "WW11", but, for now - I'm quite certain the word is 'impromptu".

But hey, your debate team must be one to contend with, indeed.

[Fionn]

Mustang,

The word you are grasping for is IMPROMPTU, not importu.

Listen, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. There is something wrong with making mistakes and failing to listen to correction. Making a mistake is human. Refusing correction is stupid.

Onto the meat of the matter at hand:

Speaking as someone who was one of TWO Alpha testers for CM:BO and thus knows a lot more about the origins of the game than you ever will... Sharpshooters are NOT snipers. Giving someone a scoped rifle does NOT make them a sniper.

To use your phraseology. "Sorry but you're butting heads with someone who knows about sniping."

If you wish some evidence I suggest you go pick up a book about sniping development throughout history ( beginning from at least WW 1... ideally going back to the ACW) and read about the difference between someone who can hit a target at 600 metres and a sniper. Being able to shoot extremely well is just one small portion of a sniper's skillset. If you don't accep this I would refer you to current US Army organisation in which snipers are assigned to the recon/intelligence portion of the Bn staff. They are there for a reason... what is that reason? Simple, their training encompasses far more than simply killing men and their chief value isn't, necessarily, that they can kill officers or the crew of crew-served weapons. Their trained eyes, cartographic skills, painstaking methodology and training re: intelligence-gathering are at least as important.

And lastly, pulling in the "if you disagree with me you are cheapening the memories of WW2 vets" is a cheap debating trick unworthy of the forum and likely to win you a LOT of detractors very quickly.

Now, with that said, I'd be the first to agree that anyone can get off to a rocky start and get a bit fired up in the heat of the moment. If you want a second chance I'm absolutely sure you'll get it ( in fact I'll make sure you get it) IF you just behave a bit more reasonably. OTOH if you keep heading down the road begun by the first post in this thread then you are going to be capped very, very quickly.

P.s. MANY contributors here have written books on WW2, contributed to numerous magazines, designed and/or developed and sold their own wargames and/or have consulted with several wargame companies. These guys are known throughout the net as knowing their stuff. I'd be very hesitant to assume I was "cock of the walk" around here (as you certainly seemed to do in your initial post) if I were you.

Again though, we all make mistakes and if you want a second chance I'll see you get one. I know all about making mistakes and needing a second chance myself.

To everyone else ( except JasonC) who posted here.. I know where you're coming from guys but let's give him a chance to "recover" from his initial, rather disastrous, contributions ok?

To Jason,

He is wrong about snipers Cawley. There's a good book called "One Shot Kill" out there.. It is quite old so you may have to go for it second-hand on Amazon which gives the history of sniping and clearly differentiates sharpshooters from snipers. If you're interested in figuring out the difference between the two etc then I'd recommend that book as a good resource. (Covers, German, Soviet, American and British sniping in World Wars I and II as well as post-WW2 developments. Also contains sections on the development of sniping from about 1790 to 1914 although doesn't go into massive detail on this since that time period isn't central to the book really.)

[JasonC]

To Fionn - create scenario, put in one sharpshooter, go to map, preview, selected sharpshooter, hit enter, read info. Does it say he is armed with a "scoped rifle"? It does not. It says he is armed with a "sniper rifle". To infer that someone armed with a sniper rifle is a sniper is perfectly reasonable.

No connection to current US Military Occupational Specialties is implied. I'm sure most US snipers of the present day have a "skill set" that includes holding their beer and impressing the womenfolk, as well as preparing simply delicious snake fillets. But that does not suffice to make those things, either, have anything to do with a common military role in WW II.

Yes, I am perfectly well aware that elite snipers did exist in WW II as well. And approximated present holders of that title in the US military. But claiming that "only" such can "truly" be termed "real" snipers is the purest sophistry and balderdash, made up out of whole cloth and long after the fact.

In the real deal in WW II, the men called a "sniper" any unlocated rifleman shooting at them. They did not mean to imply even that there was a scope on his rifle, let alone that he ate snakes. CM calls the weapon a sniper rifle and the unit a sharpshooter, and they deliver aimed rifle shots preferably from hiding. Calling them snipers is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, it is silly to refuse instruction. When it actually is instruction. When it is merely stipulated and entirely "in" usage with a particular crowd, however, it does not merit the name. E.g. "use the word 'sniper' as I use it, not as WW II veterans used it" - that is mere convention, not instruction.

[mike the wino2]

Wow, from the first coupla replies I thought someone had stepped in "Peng" outside and hadn't wiped their feet.

[Fionn]

Jason,

A sniper rifle in WW2 was usually just a bog-standard rifle with a scope. Some were accurized but the majority weren't. If I gave you a cheerleader batton I could infer that you were a cheerleader. I could just as easily infer that you were a guy who had just been given a cheerleader's batton. Neither possibility is completely excluded or proven by you holding a batton.

Same goes for WW2 sharpshooters...

ALL snipers would have had scoped rifles but not ALL those with scoped rifles were snipers. It is a very simple point ( which I know you will insist on disagreeing with through some clever mechanism... preferably one in which you get to use big words to name-call while seeming not to. So far I note balderdash, sophistry, strawman and nonsense are quite popular with you ).

In CM:BO the sharpshooter is NOT a sniper. He does not have all the other characteristics in-game which a sniper would have. He DOES have the characteristics of a sharpshooter ( an ordinary infantryman given a scoped rifle (which IS ALL that a sniper rifle in WW2 usually was) ). That is how sharpshooters are coded. I'm SURE that if Charles had it to do again he would make sure to put in "Scoped rifle" instead of "sniper rifle" to prevent you and your ilk going around reading too much into the labelling AND ignoring it when someone involved in the development TELLS you "This is how it was done, this is what it all means, this is what this unit can do, this is what it cannot do/is not.". No amount of arguing the toss is going to change the fact that when I say an in-game sharpshooter isn't a sniper the objective facts ( as coded into the game engine etc) completely support that statement.

In any case the following is priceless: " But claiming that "only" such can "truly" be termed "real" snipers is the purest sophistry and balderdash, made up out of whole cloth and long after the fact."

So, claiming that only men who actually finished official US Army sniper courses ( which gave them MANY, MANY more skills than simply being able to kill something at distance) and thus received a sniper badge have the right to be called snipers is "sophistry and balderdash"? Listen, if it is good enough for the US Army then it is good enough for me. The US Army did not officially call men given a scoped rifle snipers. It referred to them as sharpshooters. ONLY the men who finished the sniper courses were officially labelled snipers.

If you disagree with me then you disagree with the US Army too.

Let me be clear. The ONLY people who can be called "snipers" are those who finished an official sniping course. All others are just sharpshooters. CM:BO models sharpshooters, NOT snipers.

You weren't part of the development team. I was. I think that lends my statements re: how sharpshooters are coded and given capabilities in CM:BO a bit more weight than yours. Hell, now that I come to think of it I think you might even be so recent Cawley that you weren't here the last time BTS made public statements about the sharpshooter/sniper issue ( which arose first long before you ever registered here).

As to your point about men in WW2 calling any man who fired and was unspotted a "sniper". I agree with you. OTOH many of them also said that the Panther had an 88mm gun. Just because men in a warzone said something doesn't mean that CM:BO has to reflect such incorrect data.

Saying that WW2 vets named x a sniper means nothing when by that same logic all Panthers in CM:BO should have 88mm L/56 main guns.

Your last point is just marvelous...

You are stating that my statement that snipers are only those men who actually earn a sniper badge is incorrect. And you are stating that instead of that definition ( 100% compliant with any and all military regulations BTW) we should use the same definition as WW2 US soldiers who, when under fire whose source they couldn't locate, labelled that source " a sniper".

So, if Herman the short-sighted Bavarian went out into the hedgerows and decided to fire at a US unit 400 metres away... even though he'd never hit anything more than 50 metres from him in his life... YOU are saying that Hermann the short-sighted Bavarian is a sniper?

Nah, Hermann is just a piss-poor shot who is trying his luck.

Hermann's buddy, Gunther who got given a scope for his Kar98 because he was the squad's best shot but got given NO additional training is a sharpshooter.

The ONLY guy who has the right to be called a sniper is Michael who after being picked as a sharpshooter 1 year before and racking up quite a few kills went off on a 3 month training course back in Germany where they taught him lots of things about reconnaissance, drawing maps of enemy positions, what sorts of intel Bn and regimental HQs are looking for, how to stalk across open terrain without being spotted etc etc.

Mike is a sniper because of all the extra training and abilities he brings to the situation. The good shot with no extra training is a sharpshooter and the guy who just fires but isn't a very good shot is just wasting his ammo ( and is being called a sniper by the US platoon opposite him).

Yet YOU want ALL of these guys to be called snipers just because a US Vets had a habit of mislabelling incoming fire? That's no basis on which to design a game.

FWIW another big reason I doubt you'll ever join the testing team is that you ALWAYS have to be right. ALWAYS. Cawley, you are wrong about this. That's fine, we're all wrong about a lot of things.

Hell, a few days ago I made an impassioned plea about a feature in CM:BB, did up some maths to back me up only to have Charles breeze by a while later and point out the maths was all wrong. Earlier today I posted back there making a laugh of myself for my error. Why don't you just admit a mistake for once since you are so clearly wrong here.

When it all comes down to it the BTS position is that they have NOT coded sharpshooters with all the benefits snipers would have and that sharpshooters ( while armed with a weapon similar if not identical to the weapon with which snipers were armed) are NOT snipers. Period.

The only possible reality in which you are correct in saying that in-game sharpshootes are snipers is if Charles whilst intentionally coding sharpshooters NOT to be snipers accidentally coded them to be EXACTLY the same as snipers. If that's what happened you should immediately email Charles and tell him about this mistake he's made.

OR you could just say "Oh, I hadn't realised points x and y you mentioned in your post. I was wrong. Well, live and learn". To be honest I'd have a lot more respect for you if you were sometimes wrong. People who insist they are always right make me nervous since no-one is EVER always right ( not even Charles *GASP*... ).

[Priest]

Jason,

According to your logic (if you can call it that) I am off to the store to buy myself a scoped "sniper" rifle. Then I to can be a SNIPER!!! Didn't know it was sooo easy!

(Please note the dripping intentional sarcasm!)

[JasonC]

The vets were not mis-IDing the incoming fire. They were not assuming that the bullet that just whizzed by them must have been fired from someone who passed a 3 month sniper training course who knew how to eat snakes. The thought never entered their heads.

Sniper simply did not then have the elite training connotations it acquired in later usage, particularly in the US Army. This is not at all the same as an actual mis-IDing of gun, where the men being fired on thought e.g. that an 88 had fired at them.

I am quite aware of the capabilities BTS modeled in CM sharpshooters. And those capabilities fully correspond to the combat abilities so frequently encountered in WW II, that those involved called "sniper fire".

An elite CM sharpshooter who fires once from hiding and then trapses off the map to fight another day would certainly be closer to what modern sniper school trainees do. But WW II participants - not just US ones, all sides - did not sharply distinguish that sort of thing from the other, rather more common sort of thing.

You think that modern US army badge award standards are controlling on the usage of a military term in a WW II wargame. I think that is perfectly silly. Does a "sharpshooter" then mean he scored 32 out of 40 on his BRM test? Awards are just that, awards, they are not military realities. The guy who finished dead last in his sniper training course is not superior to everyone who never took it because he has a badge.

Saying someone is a sniper is not saying he ate his wheaties, any more than saying someone throwing a grenade is a grenadier means he is a member of an elite 6th company held out of battle for the toughest napoleonic-era jobs. The meaning of the term has simply changed. The original meaning of it is every bit as correct and reasonable as later ones, and especially so in an historical context like CMBO.

I understand perfectly why BTS over and over says "they aren't 'snipers'". It is because they don't want watchers of a movie with Tom Berenger or of Enemy at the Gates yelling at them "BTS please fix or do sumfink!", because their sharpshooters aren't uber enough for their taste. That's just public relations.

No appeal to imagined authorities can make it mandatory to contradict the usage of the millions of men who were actually there and actually getting shot at. Pretending otherwise is condescending to them, to say nothing of how obnoxious it is to others here.

The dictionary says "snipe" means "to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage". It makes no mention of any "stinkin' badges". The only other recognized meaning of the term, so appropriate here, is "to aim a carping or snide attack", which is exactly what the originator of this thread was exposed to.

[JasonC]

Priest - if you then use it to shoot at an exposed enemy from a concealed position, then yes you will be one. Easy or hard has nothing to do with it. If you meet the definition of the term, then the term applies. The definition of the term is not "has three double crosstick merit badges and eats snake fillet off the end of a bayonet".

[Moriarty]

Every once in while I find the need to chime in with a stupid question.

sharpshooter n a person who shoots with great accuracy; good marksman

How would calling someone a sharpshooter be a slap at WWII veterans?

I wish my eyes were good enough to be a sharpshooter.

[JasonC]

Saying one was a sharpshooter would not be any insult at all. But you could not say the same for a comment like, "you never faced a sniper in your life".

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Saying one was a sharpshooter would not be any insult at all. But you could not say the same for a comment like, "you never faced a sniper in your life".

I don't know that I would find insult in that, either. The only difference that I can see, even with my bad eyes, is that one is technically correct, thus appropriate for specific discussion where specific meaning is important for correct understanding, while the other is common usage, which is fine where such specific interpretation is not crucial to understanding.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Saying one was a sharpshooter would not be any insult at all.

Sharpshooter, Sniper and Marksman all translate into the same German word: Scharfschuetze. Over here there exists no other word for it, so I´d say the German language implicitly agrees with you. (If I ask a German Officer: >What´s the difference between a Scharfschütze and a Scharfschütze?<, he might be tempted to ask me if I have seen my psychiatrist lately. )

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Saying one was a sharpshooter would not be any insult at all.

Sharpshooter, Sniper and Marksman all translate into the same German word: Scharfschuetze. Over here there exists no other word for it, so I´d say the German language implicitly agrees with you. (If I ask a German Officer: >What´s the difference between a Scharfschütze and a Scharfschütze?<, he might be tempted to ask me if I have seen my psychiatrist lately. )</font>

[Priest]

Oh brother I cannot believe I am about to go to this level but here we go.

The real issue is the use of the word Sniper. In CMBO the word used as a verb (snipe) is correct because the sharpshooters are doing just that. In Jason's response to me, Jason described this action. I would then be sniping.

Sniper, as a noun, is a profession of sorts. Let me give you an example. Many of you on this forum and thread may be able to setup a network between some computers, but because of my specialized training and schooling I get to call myself a network engineer and you folks do not, at least not until you do what I did.

So yes, SHARPSHOOTERS in CMBO SNIPE, but there are no SNIPERS in CMBO.