SlapHappy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Found this link after a thorough search that quantifies my belief that small arms soldiers are "over-engaging" the enemy at unrealistic ranges. Very good read. Points out the problems with engaging with rifle fire at more than moderate ranges. http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/range.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 I especially like this quote: A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an AWARE target can sprint 5-9m :- you don't know which direction he will take and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single aimed shot is virtually random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppelhopser Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Interesting article. Maybe the rifle ranges were made greater when the armor engagement ranges were modified to extend further. I think it's funny when I see infantry with submachine guns start firing from what seems 200-250 meters, and sometimes even hit someone. In the eighties I was with the German Luftwaffe and we did not shoot the crappy UZIs for more than 50 m in basic training. Even at that range I can't remember hitting much. I was okay with MG3 and G3 but I hated UZI and never mastered the P1 pistol. When I was a child, a grand uncle who was in russia mentioned "we let them come very close" when I asked how my little Airfix soldiers should engage. I hope infantry will see a move towards more realism and loose some "issues". Though I realize now that TOW is not for me and I have lost most of my former interest. I honestly dislike commanding individual soldiers to pick up ammo and such and the AI radar and the "kill all" necessity. I'm really hoping for CM2 WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG1 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I fully agree with the above. Trained as an infantry platoon leader in the late eighties, French army, I remember that usual engagement distance was 300m at the max, with a preference for 200m, using the Famas 5.56mm assault rifle. Firing at greater distance was left to MGs and snipers - with exceptions similar to those described in the linked article (surprise volley, suppressive fire, etc.).Reasons for avoiding firing above 300m were various : waste of ammo, difficulty to actually see and aim, poor likeliness of hitting against high likeliness of getting spotted (and heavily rewarded for it - "don't forget they have guns aplenty, them Red Army fellows"), und so fort... Emphasis was on surprise and fire discipline : "let them get close and wipe them out through massed firepower". Having said that, I must confess I sometimes use the limitations of IT when playing against the machine, exposing voluntarily and drawing fire at relatively safe distance so that the enemy runs out of ammo with no damage to me. That of course covers guns and tanks also. I know : shame on me for such blatant cheating on the poor computer ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 yep, you need a high velocity round to hit out at 300-500 mtrs.. a 300 winchester or wetherby magnum rifle, not too uncommen has muzzle velocietios up to 4000ft/sec, so you could hit a man with a sniper riffle I assume, although I do not anything like specs on ww2 sniper riffles.. would be interested if someone did CM2 WW2 yummy [ January 21, 2008, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Freeboy ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 Originally posted by Stoppelhopser: Interesting article. Maybe the rifle ranges were made greater when the armor engagement ranges were modified to extend further. I think it's funny when I see infantry with submachine guns start firing from what seems 200-250 meters, and sometimes even hit someone. I think the ranges are based on THEORETICAL weapon ranges vs. the reality of a semi-trained marksman trying to shoot another soldier (who is desperately trying not to be shot) under combat duress. I've compared some of the shooting range info which is fairly abundant on the web vs. the "best case" marksman in TOW. If anything, the TOW numbers are still pretty moderate, but these range shooters are: 1) Using idealized shooting rests. 2) Are able to achieve controlled breathing (very important). 3) Are not in imminent danger of being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 I think the effects of wounding needs to be ramped up A LOT in the game. Soldiers who are seriously wounded don't react the way they should. I remember hearing that critically wounded soldiers would be sorted out in the patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 If things where realistic would the troops fight? lol I mean, did not green troops in most theaters attempt to avoid being killed wihile underfire? This is in no way to disparage brave men who fought and often died under fire.. I guess that is the differrence between green troops and veterens.. the ability to fight and fire under fire.. Would be interesting to get some actual data from the field.. now where is my time travel bubble.. oops sorry just watched some Sarah Conner tv stuff .. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 Originally posted by Freeboy: If things where realistic would the troops fight?Sure, just not low percentage sniper shots from across the map..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts