whizbang Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Zaitsev, the Noble Sniper, of the Siberian 284th Rifle Division, trained his men in the art of sniperism. It seems to me that the CMBB sharpshooter (as he is called) would be ideal for taking out tank commanders, silencing those pesky HMG's and hunting for Arty spotters. Can anyone tell me if they have had any successes with them? At their low price they should be good value for money, but I read in an earlier posting that they are poor at hiding. PS How many more postings do I have to make before the perjorative term "junior" will vanish from my name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 *slump* Please, please don't call them snipers. Cal them sharpshooters. There is a difference - just do a search under 'sharpshooter' or 'sniper' and be prepared for 4,000 turgid posts. Sharpshooters are excellent for picking off tank commanders and the like. They aren't much use for straightforward fighting due to their low ammo load. To lose your junior member tag, you need 500 postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizbang Posted November 2, 2002 Author Share Posted November 2, 2002 Please enlighten me. Why was Zaitsev called the Noble Sniper (ref Antony Beevor, Stalingrad, page 203/4) and not the Noble Sharpshooter. And what about Sniper Kovbasa, the Ukrainian? I searched under sniper in the title section and found just two references which were not too helpful. I'll go back and look under sharpshooter. 500 :eek: :eek: :eek: you have to be kidding. I'll do a check on you and see how many postings you have made. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I'm still miffed that Soviet "Sharpshooters" are listed as only one man and are never offered as a sniper/spotter team. Come on, the Soviets were on of the first countries in the world to use Sniper/Scouts in pairs instead of one person by themselfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I have no idea why he was called that. There is a difference between snipers and sharpshooters and snipers aren't modelled in the game. There have, I can assure you, been endless arguments about the difference and how it should be modelled. Alright, I admit it - it's 30 posts before you lose your junior member tag. Then you become my Tea Boy until you make 500 posts. Milk, no sugar, and not too strong. Jump to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizbang Posted November 2, 2002 Author Share Posted November 2, 2002 Congratulations - you have just 394 postings to go. I checked the postings for sharpshooter and discovered just two topics on the subject. The interesting thing is that it appears that snipers (who DID exeist and were specially trained) are not modelled in CMBB, just sharpshooters who were plucked from the ranks for their marksmanship. I'm talking about the zaichata or leverets who were equipped with rifles with telescopic sights and who worked from a network of trenches. Didn't Hollywood make a movie recently about one such Russian? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNoobie Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 wouldve been nice to see some female snipers modelled in game as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I think you're talking about the film "Enemy at the Gates." I haven't seen it. There's definitely no modelling for 'snipers' in the game. One of the reasons I found when going back through the archives was that snipers are very good at spotting stuff on the battlefield, and due to the constraints of the game engine what one unit sees, everyone sees - so they would be a huge imbalance to the game. When I have the points spare, I will buy one or two sharpshooters per company, but only if I've had my fill of mortars, HMGs and anti-tank rifles. If you're having trouble with HMGs, mortars should keep them quiet (unless they're in heavy buildings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawyer Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I was reading the personal interview with a female sniper on the Russian Battlefield site. She says she worked as part of a team (5 members, I believe) and they used a buddy system. She and her buddy would lie next to each other all day long waiting for a shot. They were also located in front of the main troops, so they were more exposed if seen. They moved into position during darkness. Very interesting and informative account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Adding to the above: real snipers didn't operate in the environment of the CM scenario. An CM scenario is usually a decisive battle. A sniper would work in the quite periods between those battles, between the lines or even behind enemy lines. If a sniper found himself between two platoons (or more)of infantry slugging it out he (or possible she if Russian)would be out of there real fast. Besides, a sniper would generally do real long over setting up a shot, and quit his positon after one shot. Not in the scope of the game. Bertram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizbang Posted November 2, 2002 Author Share Posted November 2, 2002 True, Bertram, but I think the addition of snipers would be faithful to history, provide some much needed balance between Axis and Allies and would also open the game a bit from it's rather rigid paper, stone, scissors (infantry, antitank, armor)structure. I don't really see its role as being that much different to the Arty spotter especially if they worked in pairs. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sgt. Emren Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I don't think snipers would bring *any* supposedly "much needed balance" (what is the imbalance in the first place?). Snipers are, IMHO, and as has been mentioned, out of the scope of the game. We have sharpshooters already - how would you model snipers so that there is a noticeable difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNoobie Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 snipers are for FPS anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffin 'Enry Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by whizbang: True, Bertram, but I think the addition of snipers would be faithful to history, provide some much needed balance between Axis and Allies and would also open the game a bit from it's rather rigid paper, stone, scissors (infantry, antitank, armor)structure. I don't really see its role as being that much different to the Arty spotter especially if they worked in pairs. CheersI realy have to ask what is this, "Much needed balance" of which you speak? That implies that there is an imbalance built into the game, between allies and axis or between attacker and defender. I have found no evidence of either. Your paper, stone, scissors metaphor seems to ignore artillery (the queen of the battlefield) and its extension, air-power. So actually each side in the game has four elements and, it could be argued, success (in the Game as well as real-life) comes to those who can balance them best - within the two other, common, elements - time and space. As an aside; last summer there was a huge thread over on the CMBO forum about the Sniper - v - Sharpshooter issue and the subject was probably explored as far as it is sensible to go. Actually that thread ran on longer than that but I got bored with it before it died/was killed off by Madmatt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 To find the sniper/sharpshooter debates, you should search the CMBO board and the CMBO archives. There's not too much discussion of the topic on the CMBB board because everyone remembers the earlier discussions, which mostly concern the sharpshooter/sniper distinction. Having said that, though, sharpshooters are very useful at a range of 100 to 500 meters; they *will* take out TCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike the wino2 Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Ooooh, this one again. Better send the missus out for more beer, plenty of Scotch on hand. *pulls out lawn chair* Don't mind me...I am just here to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizbang Posted November 2, 2002 Author Share Posted November 2, 2002 You have to forgive us newbies who haven't been around forever and haven't as grown long in the tooth as you lot. I'm afraid it's inevitable that we will occasionally ask the same questions that you pondered back at length when we were at our mother's breast. It never occurred to me to search the CMBO forum but the fact that it was mulled over then makes it even more sad that history is still being ignored. As to balance I only meant that it would be interesting to have more than one or two ways to skin a cat. Oh dear... well at least I'm now nearer to losing my J tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortes Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I remember.. and that one German fellow mentioned the fact that, in German, sniper, sharpshooter, and marksman all mean the same thing, Sharfutze (sp?). Yeah. I think I'll watch this one, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortlund Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I thought Infantry was the queen of the battlefield. Artillery is actually the king of the battlefield. While snipers would be the queers of the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Infantry Queen of the Battlefield. Artillery-King of the battlefield. Armor-Combat arm of decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by whizbang: As to balance I only meant that it would be interesting to have more than one or two ways to skin a cat. Yeah, but again, as has been pointed out above (by you even in one post) specialized snipers are outside of the scope of this game. They would end up being a couple thousand yards away from the edge ofthe most expansive CM map in most situations right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijis Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Soddball's point about sniper spotting is key. They may see stuff well, but according to my understanding they operated as individuals/small teams and wouldn't have made much effort to communicate with other troops on the map, at least not in the timeframe of the game. Under the current engine, their presence would dramatically and ahistorically improve the spotting ability of the side which controls them. Even when relative spotting is written into the game engine, they would probably have to be under the control of the AI like aircraft, if they were to be included at all. On the topic, does "sniperism" as a military doctrine actually have much meat to it, or is the term more a way of suggesting that the success of snipers was in some way related to Marxism-Leninism or the collective? I think this may have come up on the board before, but for whatever reason I had no luck with the search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizbang Posted November 3, 2002 Author Share Posted November 3, 2002 I took the term "sniperism" directly from Antony Beevor's Stalingrad and I think your point is well made. For those who haven't read it I thorougly recommend it because of its wealth of (documented) anecdotes. I particularly was impressed by story of the panzer crew who felt the only safe firing a hail of armor piercing shells at point blank range at the beleagured tank without any penetration, the Russian crew opened the hatch and bailed out unharmed. They couldn't stand the noise inside Now I know why my T'34 crews keep bailing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizbang Posted November 3, 2002 Author Share Posted November 3, 2002 Sorry about that. I checked the post but something weird happened. What I meant to say was that the panzer crew decided that the only safe way to attack the T-34 was from behind. This they did at point blank range etc etc.. (One more towards recpectability) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijis Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 Ah, you sent me thumbing through my Beevor. Great book that. He describes sniperism as a "cult." Recommend also highly his book on Crete, if you haven't already got it. [ November 03, 2002, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: nijis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts